“Did the Virgin Mary have additional children other than our Lord Jesus Christ?”
Answer: By Most Rev Joseph Osei-Bonsu
From the Catholic perspective, the straightforward answer to this question is No. However, this view needs to take into account the references in the New Testament to the brothers and sisters of Jesus. Several New Testament passages mention the brothers of Jesus (and his sisters in Mark 6:3, par. Matthew 13:55-56). In Mark 3:31-32 (par. Matthew 12:46 and Lk 8:19-20) Jesus’ mother and his brothers try to separate him from a crowd that thought he was out of his mind. Jesus responds that whoever does the will of God is his true brother and sister and mother. Mark 6:3 (= Matthew 13:55-56) speaks of the people in Nazareth who questioned Jesus’ wisdom by asking, “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James and Joses (Joseph in Matthew) and Judas and Simon?” However, Mark 15:40 states that James the younger and Joses were the sons of another Mary, presumably not the mother of Jesus.
John 2:12 mentions that the brothers of Jesus accompanied him to Capernaum and they later tauntingly suggested that Jesus should publicly demonstrate his great deeds at the Feast of Tabernacles (John 7:3, 5, 10). John agrees with the Synoptics (i.e., the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke) and in having the brothers of Jesus refuse to believe in him during his lifetime.
Acts 1:14, on the other hand, includes the brothers of Jesus as part of a group praying together after the crucifixion with the eleven disciples and some women, including Jesus’ mother Mary. Paul in 1 Corinthians 9:5 asks if he does not have the right to travel with a Christian woman (wife?) like the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas. In Galatians 1:19 Paul mentions James, “the brother of the Lord”.
The ambiguous nature of the references in the New Testament to Jesus’ family has given rise to three main views in the history of interpretation. One view, evidently supported by Tertullian, among others, is named after a later proponent called Helvidius. According to this view, which is held today by most Protestants, the brothers of Jesus were full blood brothers born to Mary and Joseph after the birth of Jesus. Those who take this view argue that the Greek word translated as “brother” (adelphos) normally refers to a physical brother, i.e., a biological descendant of the same mother and father.
A second view, defended by Origen, Eusebius and Gregory of Nyssa, is identified with Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamis, who proposed that the brothers and sisters of Jesus were actually the children of Joseph by a previous marriage. This view is the traditional view in the Eastern Orthodox churches. It is also held by some Catholic scholars. In the early second century, as we can see from a story contained in an apocryphal gospel, The Protevangelium of James, there was a tradition circulating that the “brothers and sisters” of Jesus were not children of Mary. According to the story, Joseph was an old man and a widower with children when he married Mary. Accordingly, when Jesus was born to Mary, the children of Joseph became his brothers and sisters. This is an ingenious solution because it explains not only the term “brothers and sisters”, but also why they are associated with Mary – presumably Joseph had died by the time of the public ministry of Jesus, and Mary had brought these children up as her own. It also explains how Mary could have remained a virgin even though married to Joseph. However, the historical reliability of this gospel and others, like the Gospel of Peter and the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, which contain the same story, is questionable. Nevertheless, it gives evidence of a tradition circulating at a very early period.
A third understanding of the brothers of Jesus is found in the work of St. Jerome. Jerome was interested not only in Mary’s virginity, but also in Joseph’s virginity as a symbol for encouraging the monastic, celibate life. Therefore, he did not like the explanation offered by The Protevangelium of James that Joseph had children by a previous marriage. An alternative explanation was that they were children of Joseph’s brother or Mary’s sister. Jerome argued on the basis of his interpretation of the New Testament evidence that the brothers of Jesus were in fact his cousins. This view, through the influence of Jerome, became the almost universal view in the Western Church, and that is why it is familiar to Roman Catholics.
According to the second and third views, “the brothers and sisters” are not blood brothers and sisters of Jesus. They are either step-brothers or step-sisters (second view) or cousins (third view). But if this is the case, why are they referred to as “brothers and sisters” in the New Testament? Why are they not simply referred to as “cousins” or “step-brothers” and “step-sisters”? Admittedly, the Greek words translated “brothers” and “sisters” would normally refer to blood brothers and sisters, yet some scholars think that in the New Testament itself there is some evidence that the “brothers” were not blood brothers of Jesus. Attention is drawn to the crucifixion scene in Mark 15:40 and Matthew 27:50 where there is a reference to one of the women looking on from afar as “Mary, the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome”. These are the names of two of the brothers of Jesus according to Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:55-56. Mark 15:40 and Matthew 27:50 seem to imply that they are children of another woman named Mary because if Mark had the mother of Jesus in mind, why would he refer to her as “Mary, the mother of James the younger and of Joses”? It would seem that here we are dealing with a different Mary. This information would help to confirm the post-New Testament tradition of The Protevangelium of James that the “brothers and sisters” were not children of Mary, the mother of Jesus.
Some scholars, therefore, think that in the New Testament itself, there is tenuous evidence that the “brothers” were not blood brothers. They go on to argue that if there is reason to think that these were not blood brothers and sisters (and only under that circumstance), one might appeal to the Semitic vocabulary that could have been behind the Greek for understanding the term “brothers” as “cousins” or “step-brothers”. They argue that while Greek had terms for “cousins”, “step-brothers”, “half-brothers”, etc., Hebrew and Aramaic, unlike Greek, did not have exact terminology for a wide range of family relationships. Rather they reflected a tribal background, where members of the same tribes, clan or family were regarded as brothers and sisters, irrespective of their precise relationship. A good example is the use of “brothers” in Genesis 13:8 to describe the relationship between Lot and Abraham, even though Lot was the nephew of Abraham. Against this background, it could be argued that those referred to as the “brothers and sisters” of Jesus are being described according to a loose Semitic “tribal” terminology and were, actually, more distant relatives – therefore not children of Mary.
We should also note that while there are references to the brothers and sisters of Jesus, there is no New Testament passage that refers to these brothers and sisters as children of Mary. Indeed, an ecumenical taskforce came to this conclusion with regard to the brothers and sisters of Jesus: “… it cannot be said that the New Testament identifies them without doubt as blood brothers and sisters and hence as children of Mary … The solution favored by scholars will in part depend on the authority they allot to later church insights” (See Mary in the New Testament, ed. Raymond E. Brown, Karl P. Donfried, Joseph A. Fitzmyer and John Reumann [New York: Paulist Press, 1978, pp. 65-72]). Rather, for intelligible reasons, depending on their use of subsequent church insight, Christians have emerged with different answers. Thus, while Protestant interpreters in general hold the view that “brothers and sisters” were actual blood brothers and sisters of Jesus, Catholic scholars generally have subscribed to one of two views: (a) these brothers and sisters were “cousins” of Jesus, or (b) they were step-brothers and step-sisters of Jesus.
Let me conclude by quoting Raymond E. Brown on this subject: “We Roman Catholics answer the question in the light of our church doctrine that Mary remained a virgin which, we hold, clarifies the uncertain picture presented by Scripture. We should abstain from considering unchristian those who interpret the New Testament differently; they should abstain from calling us nonbiblical when we speak of Mary Ever-Virgin. The difference of belief is not directly over the Bible; the difference is in large part over the authority of tradition and church teaching” (Raymond E. Brown, Responses to 101Questions on the Bible [Verbum Bible: Continuum, Great Britain, 2000, pp. 96-97]).