FRATELLI DI GESÙ - Enciclopedia Cattolica, Vol. V, p. 1021

Machine translation of the 1948–1954 Italian original. The original text is authoritative.

BROTHERS OF JESUS. — The blood relatives of Jesus who in the Gospels (Mt. 12:46; 13:55; Mk. 3:31; 6:3; Lk. 8:19–21; Jn. 2:12; 7:3–5) are called “His brothers” and in the Epistles of St Paul (1 Cor. 9:5; Gal. 1:19) “brothers of the Lord” (οἱ ἄλλοι τοῦ Κυρίου). Mt. 13:55 and Mk. 6:3 name four of these brothers: James, Joses (Ἰωσήφ), Jude (Simeon).

Two questions arise: 1) what degree of kinship existed between Jesus and His so-called brothers? 2) who, historically considered, are these brothers of Jesus?

I. THE DEGREE OF KINSHIP

The term “brother” often had a very broad meaning. Both the Hebrew אָח and the Greek ἀδελφός, as is evident from many sacred and profane texts, can denote: a) a brother in the strict sense (Gen. 4:8; Mt. 4:21; 17:1, etc.); b) a blood relative of any degree (Gen. 13:18; 28:2; 1 Chron. 23:21); c) a kinsman (Deut. 15:3; Josh. 22:2; Judg. 1:3; Jer. 7:15; Rom. 9:3; Jas. 1:9; Plato, Men., 8.239; Xenophon, Anab., 7.2, 25.38). The question therefore arises: in what sense do the Evangelists use the word “brothers” when speaking of the brothers of Jesus? Are these His brothers in the strictest sense, that is, the sons of St Joseph and the Blessed Virgin Mary, or rather His relatives to an unspecified degree?

The various answers can be classified under three theories:

1. The “Helvidian” theory: holds that the brothers of Jesus were the sons of St Joseph and the Blessed Virgin Mary. This theory, upheld by Helvidius and a few followers, was advanced by the Fathers (St Jerome, De perpetua virginitate adversus Helvidium: PL 23,193–216), condemned (Denz.-U., 91), and finally abandoned by all. Unfortunately it was revived in the 18th century by some writers and today is upheld by all Protestants.

2. The “Epiphanian” theory: considers the brothers of Jesus to be the sons born to St Joseph from a previous marriage. This theory, based on apocryphal tales of the apostles, was later upheld by the Greek Fathers and today is defended by some schismatic doctors.

3. The “Hieronymian” theory: maintains that the brothers of Jesus were His cousins. This theory, already advocated by St Jerome and upheld by all the Latin Fathers and some Greek ones, may today be considered the official doctrine of the Catholic Church.

The latter theory finds support both in the Gospel and in tradition. The Gospels clearly teach that neither Mary nor Joseph had any other children besides Jesus (Lk. 1–2; Mk. 6:3; Jn. 19:27); tradition knows of Jesus’ cousins, namely James, Simon and Jude, who are described as the sons of Clopas, the brother of Clopas, Joseph (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., III, 11–20; IV, 22; II, 22; PG 20,196, 252–61, 380). Jn. 19:25 indicates that the wife of Clopas was the sister of Jesus’ Mother, identical with the Mary who is called the mother of James and Joses by the Synoptics (Mt. 27:56; Mk. 15:40; Jn. 19:25).

It is therefore probable that the brothers of Jesus were the sons of Clopas, the brother of Mary the Mother of Jesus: hence Jesus’ cousins. For other hypotheses, V. ALFEUS, CLEOPAS.

II. THE HISTORICAL PERSONALITIES

It is necessary to address the question of whether the cousins of the Saviour were apostles.

It seems more probable that Jesus called some of His brothers to be part of the College of the Twelve Apostles. This is seemingly proved by St Paul in 1 Cor. 9:5. On the other hand, the argument which the opponents of the apostleship of the brothers of Jesus find in Jn. 7:3–5 does not seem to have probative value, since John here does not speak of absolute unbelief but rather of a relative unbelief, which is reconcilable with apostleship. Indeed, the Apostles, until the coming of the Holy Spirit, had an imperfect faith (Jn. 14:1–22; Acts 1:8; Lk. 24:21).

James, the brother of Jesus, was the first Bishop of Jerusalem; cf. Acts 15:13; 21:18; Gal. 1:19; 1 Cor. 15:7; many things about him are narrated by Hegesippus (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., II, 4–6; PG 20,197 sqq.).

This brother of Jesus is very probably the same as the Apostle James the son of Alphaeus. The identification of James the brother of Jesus with James the son of Alphaeus is not opposed by the fact that the former is called the son of Clopas and the latter the son of Alphaeus, since the name Clopas can be considered an Hellenized form of the Aramaic Ἀλφαῖος; moreover, the father of the brothers of Jesus could have borne both names, Alphaeus and Clopas. St Luke in Acts 12:15 presents only two Jameses, namely the son of Zebedee and the brother of Jesus; indeed, after indicating the death of the former, he speaks of the latter as though he were the only one of that name among the leaders of the nascent Church.

Tradition knows no distinct James the son of Alphaeus, but it knows James the brother of Jesus very well: it calls him an apostle, although some texts give him this title in a broad sense, the majority of the oldest and most authoritative ones do so.

BROTHERS OF JESUS — BROTHERS OF ST PATRICK

Some texts consider him one of the Twelve Apostles, identifying him with James the son of Alphaeus (cf. 1 Cor. 15:5–7; Gal. 1:19).

Jude (q.v.), the brother of Jesus and author of the Catholic Epistle, presents himself to his readers as the brother of James (Jude 1), because the latter was better known than he.

It is almost certain that this brother of Jesus is identical with the Apostle Jude of James (Lk. 6:11; Acts 1:13), surnamed Thaddeus or Lebbaeus (Mt. 10:3; Mk. 3:18). Indeed, tradition is almost unanimous in favour of the apostleship of this brother of Jesus. As far as is known, only Cyril of Alexandria indirectly held the contrary, basing himself on eccentric, non-historical reasons.

Simon, the brother of Jesus, was the second Bishop of Jerusalem. According to Hegesippus (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., III, 32; PG 20,255) he lived for a long time and suffered greatly. It is not clear, but probable, that this brother of Jesus was also part of the College of the Twelve Apostles; he must be the same as Simon the Cananaean or Zealot.

Nothing is known about Joseph, the brother of Jesus.

BIBL.: Th. Zahn, Brüder und Vettern Jesu in Forschungsg, VI, Erlangen and Leipzig 1893, pp. 225–304; K. Endemann, Zur Frage über die Brüder des Herrn, in Neue kirchliche Zeitschrift, 11 (1900), pp. 833–65; A. Lebedev, Brazi Gospodni, in Dtsch. geol. sch. 11 (1900), pp. 385–52; 407–25; II, pp. 214–28, 303–79; III, pp. 235–43; 377–90; 542–55; 1905, I, pp. 91–105; 225–36; M. Meinertz, Der Jakobusbrief (Biblische Studien, 1–3), Freiburg in Br. 1905; J. Chapman, The Brothers of the Lord, in Journal of Theological Studies, 7 (1906), pp. 412–33; Fr. Maier, Zur Apostolizität des Jakobus und Judas Herrenbrüder, in Biblische Zeitschrift, 4 (1906), pp. 164–61; J. Mader, Apostel und Herrenbrüder, ibid., 6 (1908), pp. 393–406; A. Durand, Frère de Seigneur, in DTC, II, cols. 121–48; J. M. Vosté, De Conceptione originalis Jesu Christi, Rome 1933, pp. 111–28; U. Holzmeister, De s. Joseph quaest. bibl., III, 1945, pp. 42–67; O. Hophan, Das Apostolat, Lucerne 1946.