APPENDIX E: MARK 6:3–THE ‘BROTHERS’ OF THE LORD

If we exclude the case of Helvidius (c. 370s) and possibly Tertullian (c. 220),²⁶⁷⁶ the consistent tradition of the early Fathers and writers has been to call the Mother of the Lord “ever-virgin,” (aeiparthenos) and this in spite of numerous references to the “brothers and sisters” of Jesus and possibly problematic texts such as Matthew 1:24–25.

In contrast with the early Reformers (notably Luther and Calvin) who maintained the view that Mary did not have children with Joseph, most modern Protestants (especially Evangelicals) seem quite eager to affirm the very opposite; that Mary did have a normal marital life with Joseph, and that James ‘the Lord’s brother’²⁶⁷⁷ was indeed our Lord’s younger brother in the full sense of the word. While it may be argued that the traditional position aimed at safeguarding the ever-virginity of Mary the Theotokos,²⁶⁷⁸ it is quite clear that the modern Protestant position is, in part, an attempt to uphold the dignity of marriage and a counter-reaction to extremely ascetic views (such as St. Jerome’s).

Three theories have been presented to account for the complex philological²⁶⁷⁹, contextual and theological data contained in Holy Scripture.

The so-called Epiphanian view (named after St. Epiphanius of Salamis in Cyprus) is the traditional position of Eastern Orthodoxy and the preferred exegesis of the Greek Fathers. It holds that the brothers and sisters of the Lord are most probably children of Joseph by a previous marriage as well as other close relatives such as cousins, etc.²⁶⁸⁰

The Helvidian view (named after Helvidius who was Jerome’s opponent in the controversy) is that of most Evangelicals and Protestants today: it holds that the “brothers and sisters” mentioned in the New Testament are children which Joseph had with Mary subsequent to the birth of Jesus.

Finally, what I shall call the Jeromian view²⁶⁸¹ is named after St. Jerome who did not accept the idea that the “brothers and sisters” could have been children of Joseph (whose virginity he also sought to uphold). Instead, he proposed an interpretation of the Scriptural data which concluded that the “brothers and sisters” were in fact close cousins. This is the preferred (if not official) position of Roman Catholic theology.

As we shall see, the Scriptural data is more complex than it may seem. In terms of understanding who the adelphoi of the Lord might be, the discussion will center on the identity of “Mary of Clopas” and “James, the Lord’s brother.”

From an Eastern Orthodox perspective, it is important to understand that the Orthodox Faith does not include Marian dogmas as such: even the dogmatic title ‘Theotokos’ belongs to the realm of Christology, not ‘Mariology;’ it is a soteriological dogma about the nature of Christ, not about his mother. The same can said about the belief in the Dormition/Assumption of the Virgin Mary which is a dogma in Roman Catholicism²⁶⁸² but not in Eastern Orthodoxy. Within an Eastern Orthodox context, these should be considered as “ecclesial convictions:” the Church is convinced that these things are true (that she remained ever-virgin and that “in giving birth, you preserved your virginity. In falling asleep you did not forsake the world, O Theotokos. You were translated to life, O Mother of Life”),²⁶⁸³ but these truths, although precious, do not belong to the essence of the gospel.²⁶⁸⁴ Hence, every Orthodox liturgical service includes several references to “our most holy, pure, blessed, and glorious Lady, the Theotokos and ever-virgin Mary.” This confident conviction is also expressed in canon 2 of the Fifth Ecumenical Council at Constantinople in 553:²⁶⁸⁵

If anyone does not confess that there were two nativities of the Word of God, one before the ages… the other in the last days… who came down from heaven, and was incarnate of the holy, glorious ever virgin Mother of God Mary, and was born of her, let him be anathema.

However, St. Basil, who was himself (as all Orthodox should be), a believer in the perpetual virginity of the Theotokos, could still write that:

[The opinion that Mary bore several children after Christ] … is not against the faith; for virginity was imposed on Mary as a necessity only up to the time that she served as an instrument for the Incarnation. On the other hand, her subsequent virginity was not essential to the mystery of the Incarnation. (Homilia in sanctam Christi generationem, PG 31:1468)

Nevertheless, the same text²⁶⁸⁶ also contains the following admonition:

The friends of Christ do not tolerate hearing that the Theotokos ever ceased to be a virgin… (§5)

This Orthodox position is consistent with the exegesis and teachings of Origen, St. Gregory of Nyssa²⁶⁸⁷ and St. John Chrysostom among others. Commenting on the Gospel of Matthew, the great preacher noted:

When Joseph had taken Mary [as wife], he did not know her until she had brought forth her first-born Son. Here, [Matthew] used the word until, not that you should suspect that afterwards he did know her, but to inform you that before the birth, the Virgin was wholly untouched by man. But why then, it may be said, did he use the word until? Because it is usual in Scripture to do this and to use this expression without reference to limited times… Here, likewise, it uses the word until to make certain what was before the birth, but as to what follows, it leaves you to make the inference. Thus, what it was necessary for you to learn of Him, this he said; that the Virgin was untouched by man until the birth; but that which both was seen to be a consequence of the former statement, and was acknowledged, this in its turn he leaves for you to perceive; namely, that not even after this, she having so become a mother, and having been counted worthy of a new sort of travail, and a child-bearing so strange, could that righteous man ever have endured to know her. For if he had known her, and had kept her in the place of a wife, how is it that our Lord commits her, as unprotected, and having no one, to His disciple, and commands him to take her to his own home? (St. John Chrysostom, On the Gospel of Matthew, V.5)

This exegesis by a native Greek speaker and Biblical exegete leads us back to the question of the Scriptural terminology:

YLT²⁶⁸⁸ Matthew 1:18 And of Jesus Christ, the birth was thus: For his mother Mary having been betrothed to Joseph, before their coming together, she was found to have conceived from the Holy Spirit...

YLT Matthew 1:24 And Joseph, having risen from the sleep, did as the messenger of the Lord directed him, and received²⁶⁸⁹ his wife.

YLT Matthew 1:25 And did not know her until²⁶⁹⁰ she brought forth her son – - the first-born, and he called his name Jesus.

YLT Luke 2:7 And she brought forth her son – the first-born, and wrapped him up, and laid him down in the manger, because there was not for them a place in the guest-chamber.

YLT Matthew 12:46 And while he was yet speaking to the multitudes, lo, his mother and brethren had stood without, seeking to speak to him, and one said to him, 'Behold, your mother and your brothers stand outside, seeking to speak to you.' And he answering said to him who spoke to him, 'Who is my mother? And who are my brothers?'

YLT Matthew 13:55 Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary, and his brothers James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters -- are they not all with us?

RSV Mark 3:31 And his mother and his brothers came; and standing outside they sent to him and called him.

YLT Luke 8:19 And there came unto him his mother and brothers, and they were not able to get to him because of the multitude.

YLT John 2:12 after this he went down to Capernaum, he, and his mother, and his brothers, and his disciples; and there they remained not many days.

RSV John 7:1–5 After this Jesus went about in Galilee; he would not go about in Judea, because the Jews sought to kill him… So his brothers said to him, «Leave here and go to Judea, that your disciples may see the works you are doing. For no man works in secret if he seeks to be known openly. If you do these things, show yourself to the world.» For even his brothers did not believe in him.

YLT John 7:10 And when his brothers went up, then also he himself went up to the feast, not manifestly, but as in secret.

YLT Acts 1:14 These all were continuing with one accord in prayer and supplication, with women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers.

YLT Galatians 1:19 And other of the apostles I did not see, except James, the brother of the Lord.

As we can see, the argumentation in favor of the Helvidian/Protestant view rests on what seems to be the most natural reading of the text, especially from a modern mindset and considered in a translated version. Let us then review these texts in order.

As John Chrysostom observed, Matthew 1:18 stresses the fact that St. Joseph had positively nothing to do with the conception of Jesus. Even though he was betrothed to Mary, he had not known her before she became pregnant, and Matthew makes sure that this point is established so that the application of Isaias (Isaiah) 7:14 LXX can be justified. As all scholars recognize, this text gives no information as to what happened afterwards. In fact, Matthew 1:24 tells us that following a supernatural dream, the righteous Joseph accepted to “take charge of her,” “to take her to himself,” or “to take her home.” The Greek word pare,laben can have a variety of meanings, but the traditional Orthodox understanding is that Joseph accepted to continue his responsibility of protection towards Mary in spite of her unexpected (and supernatural) pregnancy.

Matthew 1:25 contains the controversial expression “until” which may certainly indicate a reversal in the course of action, especially in its ἕως οὗ form. We have already encountered the exegesis presented by St. John Chrysostom which refuted the idea of reversal in the previous course of action (which was abstinence). In the light of recent attempts by Protestant apologists²⁶⁹¹ to establish a rule of Greek construction to the effect that ἕως οὗ would always imply a reversal, it is especially important to realize that both Chrysostom and Origen (who rejected the reversal idea) were intimately conversant with the Greek language in its manifold forms,²⁶⁹² especially that of the Septuagint and of the New Testament. If ἕως οὗ always meant reversal for native Greek speakers, this would have been known to all and their arguments would have been absurd. Because Origen was the foremost Greek scholar of the Early Church, his assessment cannot be refuted by modern speculations as to the possible exclusive meaning of ἕως οὗ at that time that Matthew was composed:

For if Mary, as those declare who with sound mind extol her, had no other son but Jesus, and yet Jesus says to His mother, Woman, behold thy son… (Commentary on John, 1.6)

The Book [the Protoevangelium] of James [records] that the brothers of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now, those who say so wish to preserve the honor of Mary in virginity to the end, so that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word... might not know intercourse with a man after the Holy Spirit came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the first-fruit among men of the purity which consists in [perpetual] chastity, and Mary was among women. For it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the first-fruit of virginity. (Origen, Commentary on Matthew, 2:17 [A.D. 248]).

The Greek Fathers knew their beloved language quite well, and they understood the permanent influence of Septuagintal terminology in the New Testament,²⁶⁹³ even as “Thou shalt not” is used and understood by all even to this day.

In Luke 2:7, the “firstborn” argument (with the suggestion that “firstborn” implies subsequent children) seems especially weak since prototokos only implies a special legal status for “the one who opens the womb” (Exodus 13:2, Numbers 8:16).²⁶⁹⁴

We then come to the meaning of the Greek word adelphos (brother). Obviously, this word can have the meaning of brother in the biological sense and this can be generally taken as the natural sense (as in Matthew 4:21 to describe the relationship of James and John).²⁶⁹⁵ Moreover, we should note that the Greek language had a specific word for cousin (anepsios) and kinsman (sungenes), although the latter had a very wide meaning, most often that of “fellow countryman.”

In the Septuagint, adelphos often meant “close relative,”²⁶⁹⁶ and it is interesting that in the New Testament, adelphos is best translated as “close one,” both in the biological and spiritual sense. If we consider the New Testament use of adelphos in the framework of the Epiphanian view, it becomes apparent that neither anepsios nor sungenes would do: the Theotokos would have been a widow with an only-son, and she would have been “adopted” by the family clan (or clans – both on Joseph’s side and her own). Hence, the adelphoi would have been a combination of step-brothers (Joseph’s sons by a previous marriage) and cousins (through Mary’s relatives and through Clopas who may have been Joseph’s brother). In summary, adelphoi is the word that we should expect to find in the New Testament to describe the Lord’s ‘close relatives’ but not necessarily ‘biological siblings.’

At this point, we can see that there are no direct, unambiguous reasons that would force the biblical student to conclude that Joseph and Mary had other children. Indeed, it is significant that no one in Scripture is called son or daughter of Mary, except Jesus Christ himself. In fact, we can now turn to positive evidence, or at least indications that Jesus was in fact the first-born and only-born son, as this was discerned by the God-illumined Fathers.

Mark 6:3, which mentions the adelphoi of Jesus, may also indicate that only Jesus was the son of Mary:

Is this not the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him.

This point, although minor, should be noted, especially in light of the fact that no one else in Scripture is called “son of Mary.”

One of England’s finest scholars, Richard Bauckham,²⁶⁹⁷ offered a comprehensive analysis of this text in the Catholic Biblical Quarterly.²⁶⁹⁸ When “son of Mary” is used in Mark 6:3, Bauckham contends that calling Jesus by his mother’s name (a metronymic) indicates that locally, there was knowledge that Jesus was to be distinguished from his “step brothers and sisters” because the locals knew that these adelphoi had different mothers. Bauckham cites various Old Testament genealogies where sons are ‘sons of a woman’ (named after their mother, not their father) to support this view.²⁶⁹⁹

Another indication that the adelphoi were not younger brothers of Jesus is that their forceful attitude is at odds with the respect normally accorded to the elder brother. This is especially noticeable in Mark 3 and John 7.

Certainly the most significant indication that the adelphoi were not sons of Mary and Joseph is found in the dialogue at cross when Mary and John are entrusted to each other as Mother and Son:

When Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son!” Then he said to the disciple, «Behold, your mother!» And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home. (John 19:26–27)

This account only makes sense if the Mother of the Lord had lost her only son and needed to be entrusted to a new ‘son’ who would look after her. If Mary was the mother of several other children by Joseph, this entrusting to John would be neither necessary nor socially acceptable. This was, for instance, St. Hilary’s interpretation:

If they [the brethren of the Lord] had been Mary’s sons and not those taken from Joseph’s former marriage, she would never have been given over in the moment of the passion [crucifixion] to the apostle John as his mother, the Lord saying to each, ‘Woman, behold your son,’ and to John, ‘Behold your mother’ [John 19:26–27), as he bequeathed filial love to a disciple as a consolation to the one desolate» (Hilary of Poitiers, Commentary on Matthew, 1:4 [A.D. 354]).

The Protestant rebuttal that Mary needed to be entrusted to a believer because her alleged ‘other children’ did not believe in Jesus is untenable. There is no indication that none of the Lord’s relatives believed in him and our Lord must have known that he would personally appear to James²⁷⁰⁰ (and perhaps to his other adelphoi) and that the latter would soon become not only a ‘Christian’ but even the first bishop of the Mother Church of Jerusalem. The dialogue at the cross is perhaps the most compelling piece of evidence that the adelphoi could not have been Mary’s children.

Indeed, the grief which the Holy Theotokos endured at the foot of cross, described in Simeon’s prophecy as “a sword will pierce your soul,”²⁷⁰¹ must have been that of a mother mourning for her only son:

NIV Zechariah 12:10 «And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son.

This may explain why, on his own initiative, the Lord took it upon himself to approach the funeral procession of Nain:

Soon afterwards he went to a town called Nain, and his disciples and a large crowd went with him. As he approached the gate of the town, a man who had died was being carried out. He was his mother’s only son, and she was a widow; and with her was a large crowd from the town. When the Lord saw her, he had compassion for her and said to her, “Do not weep.” Then he came forward and touched the bier, and the bearers stood still. And he said, “Young man, I say to you, arise!” The dead man sat up and began to speak, and Jesus gave him to his mother. (Luke 7:11–15 RSV)

As a result, postulating the existence of ‘other children of Mary’ has the result of depriving the Mother of our Lord of a fullness of her unique grief as a widow losing her only son in fulfillment of the texts presented above.

Another passage which points to Mary’s perpetual virginity is Luke 1:34:

YLT Luke 1:31 And behold, you shall conceive in the womb, and shall bring forth a son, and call his name Jesus; 1:34 And Mary said to the messenger, ‘How shall this be, seeing a husband I do not know?’

In the context of the Helvidian theory, this dialogue makes little sense: if Mary, who was engaged and about to get married, intended to have a usual marital relationship with Joseph, it would have been with the expectation that she would naturally conceive a child. The answer should have been, “Yes, I shall conceive because I am about to get married, and you Gabriel are telling that it shall be a son and that he will be great.” Instead, the idea that she will conceive is seen as impossible and the reply seems to indicate that Mary was a consecrated virgin who had taken a vow of virginity. This is the understanding presented in an influential early Christian text known as the Protevangelium of James²⁷⁰² where Joseph is presented as a widower with other children who would act as betrothed protector of the Virgin.

The New Testament gives us an indication that this practice of ‘betrothal protection,’ undoubtedly unusual to modern minds, was widely adopted, probably in imitation of the Theotokos and St. Joseph:

36Nevertheless, if any man thinks that he is behaving inappropriately toward his virgin,²⁷⁰³ if she has past the flower of her age, and if it is required, let him do what he wills:²⁷⁰⁴ he does not sin, let them marry. 37As for the one who stands steadfast in his heart, (having no necessity, but having control over his own heart to keep his virginity): he does well. 38And so, he who marries his [betrothed] virgin does well, and he who does not does better. (EOB: 1Corinthians 7:36–38)

Finally, we should consider the age relationship between Jesus and his most prominent adelphos: James. The Helvidian view would require that Joseph and Mary would have had six to seven children including Jesus, and that James would have been Jesus’ ‘younger brother.’ Not only is this perspective improbable practically and culturally, it is also contradicted by at least one indication that James was older than Jesus. Although neither Hegesippus nor Eusebius specifically addressed James’ age at his martyrdom in 62–66 AD, Epiphanius (†403) indicated that he was ninety- two years old. However, James would have had to be less than 62–68 years old at his death for the Helvidian view to be tenable.

In addition to the historic-textual data discussed above, the fact that the inspired Scriptures present the Theotokos as the antitype of the holy dwelling place of God, especially the Ark is significant. This typology, presented in the introductory section of the EOB, is unmistakable and precludes the idea that any human hand would have touched the Ark of God, both in type and fulfillment.²⁷⁰⁵

When the issue of the perpetual virginity of the Theotokos came under discussion, some of the Fathers, notably St. Ambrose and St. Augustine, also pointed to Ezekiel’s vision:

Then he brought me back to the outer gate of the sanctuary, which faces east; and it was shut. The Lord said to me: This gate shall remain shut; it shall not be opened, and no one shall enter by it; for the Lord, the God of Israel, has entered by it; therefore it shall remain shut. Only the prince, because he is a prince, may sit in it to eat food before the Lord; he shall enter by way of the vestibule of the gate, and shall go out by the same way. Then he brought me by way of the north gate to the front of the temple; and I looked, and behold, the glory of the Lord filled the temple of the Lord; and I fell upon my face.²⁷⁰⁶

As heirs of ancient Israel, princes and seers of the glory of the Kingdom, Orthodox Christians honor the Mother of the King with same reverence which the Davidic princes accorded to their mother:

The queen stood by on thy right hand, vested in gold and arrayed in embroidery.²⁷⁰⁷

LXE 1 Kings 2:13 And Adonias the son of Aggith came in to Bersabee the mother of Solomon, and did obeisance²⁷⁰⁸ to her: and she said, Dost thou enter peaceably? and he said, Peaceably…

LXE 1 (Brenton LXX) Kings 2:19 And Bersabee went in to king Solomon to speak to him concerning Adonias; and the king rose up to meet her, and kissed her, and sat on the throne, and a throne was set for the mother of the king, and she sat on his right hand.

Hence, the place of the Spirit, “the household of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth” reads such Old Testament passages on the feasts of the Mother of the Savior who is called ‘our Lord and our God’ (John 20:28).

Writing in the middle of the second century, Origen was aware of at least two pre-existing texts which affirmed the Epiphanian view: The so-called Infancy Gospel of James²⁷⁰⁹ (already mentioned) and the Gospel of Peter.²⁷¹⁰ We should also add to this list the Infancy Gospel of Thomas,²⁷¹¹ the Ascension of Isaiah²⁷¹² and the Odes of Solomon. These early works are not heretical Gnostic texts but belong to the Judeo-Christian tradition, which is why they were widely respected in many early Churches. Origen and the Greek Fathers after him felt that the story presented by the Protevangelium of James represented a most likely account, especially on theological grounds.

This particular ‘proto-Gospel’ belongs to the so-called pseudepigrapha and presents itself as a tradition from James himself. According to the story, the Theotokos was miraculously conceived by Joachim and Anna in their old age, after much prayer. She was entrusted to the priests to be raised in the Temple, and one of her tasks was to participate in the weaving of the great curtain²⁷¹³ which represented matter and more specifically the flesh of the Lord of Glory. When she reached the age to leave the Temple, she was entrusted to Joseph who was a Tzadik,²⁷¹⁴ an older man, and the father of other children by his first marriage. Hence, James ‘the Lord’s brother’ is presented as a step-brother of the Lord, which seems to have been the view of Hegesippus and Eusebius.

This account makes perfect theological sense and is accepted by Orthodox Christians as worthy of their pious belief.

The theory proposed by St. Jerome is that the adelphoi of the Lord were most probably cousins, and that both Mary and Joseph were always virgins. The nexus of the Jeromian view is to identify the “other Mary” of the synoptics as well as her son “James.”

This enigmatic figure must have been a close disciple of the Lord since she is mentioned so frequently: at the foot of the Cross of Crucifixion of our Lord, at His Tomb, and in the Upper Room. She is also identified as the mother of a certain James (James being a very common name). In Matthew 27:56 she is at the Cross, called “Mary, the mother of James and Joseph.” In verse 61, at the Tomb, she is called “the other Mary.” In Matthew 28:1, she is going to the Tomb and referred to as “the other Mary;” and in Mark 15:40 as “Mary, the mother of James the younger and of Joses.” Again, in verse 47, we have “Mary the mother of Joses” and in Mark 16:1, going to the Tomb with spices, she is called “Mary the mother of James.”

In the gospel of Luke, she is mentioned in 24:10, speaking to the Apostles about the Resurrection, as “Mary the mother of James.” Finally, John 19:25 reads: “So the soldiers did this. But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.”

These texts are actually quite ambiguous on at least three points: (1) Is “Mary of Clopas” the same as “his mother’s sister” in John 19:2? This is very probable based on the construction but not absolutely certain. (2) Does “sister” mean “biological” sister? This is very unlikely because parents would not give the same first name to two of their children! Hence, “sister” could mean close relative or sister in law, as well shall see. (3) Was “Mary of Clopas” the wife or daughter of the man named Clopas (Κλωπᾶ)?

At this point, we must ask ourselves if we are willing to go outside the Scriptural data and consider Early Christian traditions to help us elucidate the situation. If so, the testimony of Hegesippus (+180, quoted in Eusebius) is very helpful:

After the martyrdom of James and the conquest of Jerusalem which immediately followed, it is said that those of the apostles and disciples of the Lord that were still living came together from all directions with those that were related to the Lord according to the flesh (for the majority of them also were still alive) to take counsel as to who was worthy to succeed James. They all with one consent pronounced Symeon, the son of Clopas, of whom the Gospel also makes mention; to be worthy of the episcopal throne of that parish. He was a cousin, as they say, of the Savior. For Hegesippus records that Clopas was a brother of Joseph.²⁷¹⁵

Pr. Bauckham uses this information to shed further light on these relatives of the Lord:

According to Hegesippus, Joseph had a brother named Clopas. The name is extremely rare: only two other certain occurrences of it are known. One of these is in John 19:25. We can therefore be sure that the man to whom this verse of the Fourth Gospel refers is the same Clopas, Joseph’s brother. If ‘Mary of Clopas’ was Clopas’s wife, then she was in fact Jesus’ mother’s husband’s brother’s wife–a relationship which, not surprisingly, the evangelist has preferred to state less precisely as: ‘his mother’s sister’. So it seems that an aunt of Jesus, as well as his mother, was among those Galilean women who accompanied him on his last journey to Jerusalem and were present at the cross.

Probably Clopas himself was also in Jerusalem at this time. Luke names one of the two disciples in his story of the walk to Emmaus as Cleopas (Lk. 24:18). This Greek name is not the same as the Semitic name Clopas, but it was common for Palestinian Jews at this period to be known by both a Semitic name and a Greek name which sounded similar (Simon/Simeon). Luke names him because he was a sufficiently significant person in the early church for some of Luke’s readers to have heard of him. Perhaps his companion on the road to Emmaus was his wife Mary. This uncle and this aunt of Jesus were among his loyal followers at the end of his ministry.²⁷¹⁶

We can therefore conclude that Mary of Clopas was a relative of the mother of Jesus, and the “mother of James the Less and Joses” where “the Less” (tou/ mikrou) can also be translated “the Younger/the Least/the Smallest.” What is significant is that “James and Joses” are counted among the adelphoi of the Lord in Mark 6:3. These were common names, but it is very possible that these ‘brothers/relatives’ of Jesus mentioned in Mark 6:3 were in fact sons of Mary of Clopas who may well have been Joseph’s sister-in-law. This identification would go against the Epiphanian/Greek view which sees James ‘the Lord’s brother’ as a son of Joseph but both approaches are compatible: James the Just and “of Jerusalem” (one of the adelphoi) could have been Jesus’ step-brother through Joseph and James the Less (brother of Joses/Joseph) could be a different James, i.e. a son of Clopas who would be Joseph’s brother.

It should also be noted that some have suggested that in Mark 15:40, “Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses” (also in Matthew 27:56) was in fact the mother of Jesus, but this seems close to impossible.

What remains extremely complex is the identification of “James” in various passages.

Before discussing this issue at length, the Catholic Encyclopedia reminds the reader of who is called ‘James’ in the New Testament:

1. James, the son of Zebedee -- Apostle, brother of John, Apostle; also called «James the Greater».

2. James, the son of Alphaeus, Apostle -- Matthew 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13.

3. James, the brother of the Lord -- Matthew 13:55; Mark 6:3; Galatians 1:19. Without a shadow of doubt, he must be identified with the James of Galatians 2:2 and 2:9; Acts 12:17, 15:13; 21:18; and 1Corinthians 15:7.

4. James, the son of Mary, brother of Joseph (or Joses) -- Mark 15:40 (where he is called o mikros «the little», not the «less», as in the D.V., nor the «lesser»); Matthew 27:56. Probably the son of Cleophas or Clopas (John 19:25) where «Maria Cleophæ is generally translated «Mary the wife of Cleophas», as married women are commonly distinguished by the addition of their husband's name.

5. James, the brother of Jude -- Jude 1:1. Most Catholic commentators identify Jude with the «Judas Jacobi», the «brother of James» (Luke 6:16; Acts 1:13), called thus because his brother James was better known than himself in the primitive Church.

The article continues with a discussion of the possible identification of the Apostle James (2), the son of Alphaeus and James (3), the brother of the Lord and Bishop of the Church of Jerusalem (Acts 15, 21) which is favored in the Roman Catholic view but which was never embraced in the East:

The identity of the Apostle James (2) and James (3), although contested by many critics and, perhaps, not quite beyond doubt, is at least most highly probable, and by far the greater number of Catholic interpreters is considered as certain (where the chief argument, taken from Galatians 1:19, in favor of the Apostleship of St. James the brother of the Lord, is to be found). The objection moved by some against the common statement that “Apostles” in Galatians 1:19²⁷¹⁷ is to be taken strictly in the sense of the “Twelve” has been strongly [debated]. The James (5) of Jude 1:1 must certainly be identified with James (3), the brother of the Lord and the Bishop of Jerusalem. The identification of James (3), the brother of the Lord and James (4), the son of Mary, and probably of Cleophas or Clopas offers some difficulty. This identification requires the identity of Mary, the mother of James (Matthew 27:56; Mark 15:40), with Mary the wife of Cleophas (John 19:25), and, consequently, the identity of Alphaeus (2) and Clopas (4). As Clopas and Alphaeus are probably not two different transcriptions of the same Aramaic name Halpai, it must be admitted that two different names have been borne by one man. Indeed, there are several examples of the use of two names (a Hebrew and a Greek or Latin name) to designate the same person (Simon-Petrus; Saulus-Paulus), so that the identity of Alphaeus and Cleophas is by no means improbable.²⁷¹⁸

On the whole, although there is no full evidence for the identity of James (2), the son of Alphaeus, and James (3), the brother of the Lord, and James (4), the son of Mary of Clopas, the view that one and the same person is described in the New Testament in these three different ways, is by far the most probable. There is, at any rate, very good ground (Galatians 1:19, 2:9, 2:12) for believing that the Apostle James, the son of Alphaeus is the same person as James, the brother of the Lord, the well-known Bishop of Jerusalem of the Acts.

Some aspects of this theory are possible and since St. Jerome is undoubtedly a saint of East and West, his view may be considered to belong to the wider heritage of Orthodox Christianity. This being said, the view that James of Jerusalem was a son of Joseph (prior to his becoming a widower) is on traditional grounds the one that is to be considered normative in Eastern Orthodoxy.

This being said, there remains a hesitation to offer a dogmatic interpretation of this data, as illustrated by the entry for “James the Apostle, Brother of Our Lord” published by the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America:

According to some, this Saint was a son of Joseph the Betrothed, born of the wife that the latter had before he was betrothed to the Ever-virgin. Hence he was the brother of the Lord, Who was also thought to be the son of Joseph (Matt. 13:55). But some say that he was a nephew of Joseph, and the son of his brother Cleopas, who was also called Alphaeus and Mary his wife, who was the first cousin of the Theotokos. But even according to this genealogy, he was still called, according to the idiom of the Scriptures, the Lord’s brother because of their kinship.

This James is called the Less (Mark 15:4) by the Evangelists to distinguish him from James, the son of Zebedee, who was called the Great. He became the first Bishop of Jerusalem, elevated to this episcopal rank by the Apostles, according to Eusebius…

However, we have seen that the ideas that ‘Cleopas was also called Alphaeus and that Mary his wife, was the first cousin of the Theotokos’ are extremely speculative. Also, by stating that “This James is called the Less (Mark 15:4) by the Evangelists to distinguish him from James, the son of Zebedee,” one gains the impression that James of Jerusalem was possibly one of the Twelve, whereas the primary Orthodox tradition favors the view that he was an apostle of the Seventy.

The preferred view of this article is that not every one of the Lord’s relatives failed to believe in him. As we have seen, while Joseph had already gone to his rest, his brother Clopas/Cleopas and sister-in law (Clopas’ wife Mary) were well-known disciples of Christ. One of Clopas’ sons, Symeon, later became the second bishop of Jerusalem after James; and this Symeon (or Symon) may be the one mentioned as an adelphos in Mark 6:3. It may also be suggested that Clopas should not in fact be identified with Alphaeus, which means that “James of Alphaeus” (one of the Twelve) should not be confused with James the son of Mary of Clopas.²⁷¹⁹ Regarding the identification of James of Jerusalem and the Apostle James of Alphaeus, it would seem preferable to maintain the traditional Orthodox view that these are two different men. In doing so, we must concede that Galatians 1:19 is a difficult text since it seems to place “James the Lord’s brother” among the apostles. However, it is likely that James was in fact among the Seventy (as attested in the Slavic tradition) and that the Twelve apostles did not see it fitting that any of them should become bishop of a particular city.

Finally, it seems clear that among “his brothers James and Joseph/Joses and Simon and Judas,” the first three are most probably sons of Mary of Clopas and therefore ‘step cousins’ of Jesus. If Mary and Jesus had been ‘adopted’ in Joseph’s clan, they could indeed have been called adelphoi in a Jewish / Aramaic context. However, it may also be that the James of Mark 6:3 was a son of Joseph and the future bishop of Jerusalem if we adopt the view that this James is not identical with the James the Less/Younger of Mark 15:40.

The same Fathers who discerned the canon of the New Testament, read Greek natively, and left us a model of reverence for the biblical text are the same Fathers who called the mother of our Lord not only ‘Theotokos’ (bearer of the divine one) but also ‘aeiparthenos’ (ever-virgin). Indeed, not a single Father or Council ever interpreted the Scriptures to teach that the Mother of the Savior who is the very icon of the Church had more than one biological child. According to the bold witness of Scripture,²⁷²⁰ we are brothers and sisters of the Great High Priest, sharing one Father and indeed one ‘Mother’ who is inseparably connected with the Church, the Spirit and the Theotokos.

Hence, the same Athanasius who was the first to list the canonical books of the New Testament could also write:

Let those, therefore, who deny that the Son is by nature from the Father and proper to his essence deny also that he took true human flesh from the ever-virgin Mary. (Athanasius, Discourses Against the Arians, 2:70).

With the saints glorified by the vision of the Lord of Glory and the contemplation of and participation in the holy mysteries beyond the curtain, we can say with the inspired psalmist:

So great is your faithful love, I may come into your house, and I bow down before your holy temple, filled with awe! (Psalm 5:7)

(Note: for the full treatment of this topic by the Editor of the present translation, please refer to: Aiparthenos | Ever-Virgin? Understanding the Orthodox Catholic Doctrine of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, the Mother of Jesus, and the Identity of James and the Brothers and Sisters of the Lord (2015)