Did Jesus Have Siblings?

Some Christians believe that Mary had other children after she bore Jesus, but the Catholic Church teaches that Mary always remained a virgin - both before and after Christ's birth. She had only one son, and that son was Jesus. Another belief among Christians is that Joseph may have had children from a prior marriage (he was a widower) before he wedded Mary. These children became the stepbrothers and stepsisters of Jesus. Those who think Jesus had siblings will quote Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:55: "Is this not the carpenter's son, the son of Mary, and the brother of James and Joseph and Simeon and Jude? Are not his sisters here with us?" Matthew 12:47 says, "Your mother and your brothers are standing outside."

So who were these brothers and sisters if they weren't actual siblings of Jesus? The Catholic Church points out that the Gospels were written in Greek, not English. The Greek word used in all three cases is adelphoi, which can be translated as "brothers." But the word can also mean "cousins" or "relatives" (like an uncle, or nephew). An example of this can be found in the Old Testament. Genesis 11:27 says that Abram and Haran were brothers, sons of Terah. Lot was Haran's son, therefore a nephew of Abram (Abram's name was later changed to Abraham by God). However, in the King James version of the Bible (the first English translation), Lot is referred to as the brother of Abraham. The Greek word in the Septuagint (Greek translation) version of the Old Testament is again adelphos (singular form of adelphoi). Obviously, there was no word in Greek that translated directly from uncle to nephew, so the word brother can have a meaning besides sibling.

The Catholic Church reasons that if the Bible used brother to refer to a nephew in one instance, why not again? Who's to say the adelphoi of Jesus were literally brothers, and not relatives? Since the word was used to mean relative in the Old Testament, it might mean the same in the New. The Church uses other reasons, as well: if Jesus had brothers, why weren't they there for his crucifixion? Mary and some other women watched it, but the only man around was John (who was certainly not a relative of Jesus). As he was dying on the cross, Jesus told John, "Behold your mother" (John 19:27). John then brought Mary into his home to care for her. Why did Jesus tell John to look after his mother instead of allowing any surviving brothers to do so? This would only make sense if Mary had no surviving children.

The Church also poses another problem: If there were blood-brothers (or even step-brothers) of Jesus, why did none of them take on roles of leadership after his death? The family culture of the time would have never allowed Peter and the other apostles to assume a family member's mission (in this case, Jesus's ministry) if there were other brothers. However, if the closest surviving relatives were cousins, uncles, and nephews, such an assumption would make sense.

The debate will probably rage for several more centuries. The real factor is the Church's authority on such matters. Catholicism does not place the Church above the Bible, but sees the Church as the only true guardian and interpreter of the Scripture.