The Family of Jesus
October 16th, 2007 by 
Tony
Last week’s New Testament Apocrypha class (yes, I know, I’m still a little behind on blogging, and virtually everything else) focused on the family of Jesus—i.e., a discussion of traditions about the brothers and sisters of Jesus and an examination of texts about the final days of his parents (the Assumption/Dormition of Mary and the History of Joseph the Carpenter). We also took a look at the Abgar Correspondence.
Of principle interest to me, as usual, is the issue of the categories of orthodoxy and heresy. The Abgar Correspondence can be considered, once again, orthodox apocrypha: it is a text created by orthodoxy to validate their presence in Syria. Creating apocrypha is not just a pursuit of “heretics”; and such a leading figure of orthodoxy as Eusebius was gullible enough to believe this text authentic. And he makes this determination not because he has conducted the proper investigations to determine its authenticity (Do the early church writers mention it? no. Does it have apostolic credentials? no. Is it widely used in the churches? no) but because it fits the agenda of orthodox Christianity. It makes one wonder how much the selection of the NT texts was determined by the same motive.
The fine line between orthodoxy and heresy is breached also in the Mary and Joseph texts. We discussed in class the interplay between the Dormition and doctrines about Mary’s death—what came first, the notion that Mary was assumed into heaven at her death (or some such variation)? or the text which established this idea? Is the doctrine dependent on the text or the text on the doctrine? The same problem occurs with the parents of Mary in the Proto-Gospel of James: was there a tradition established about Anna and Joachim before James, or was James the originator of the tradition? Unfortunately, it’s not possible to answer these questions but I think we can be certain that developing doctrines and apocryphal texts interacted with one another over the centuries, with the texts supporting and widely-disseminating new doctrines before they became official teachings of the church.
In our discussion of the family of Jesus I promised to provide more information about James Tabor’s recent book on this topic, The Jesus Dynasty. Here are the basic points of his theory:
The “other Mary” (mother of James and Joses/Joseph) at the tomb in Mark and Matthew is Jesus’ mother.
John mentions a Mary, the wife of Clopas, at the cross with Jesus’ mother and Mary Magdalene. Eusebius tells us that this Clopas was the brother of Joseph and he had a son named Simon. This means that both Mary, the mother of Jesus, and Mary the wife of Clopas have three sons named James, Joses, and Simon. Therefore, Tabor thinks the two Marys are the same woman and that Mary remarried after the death of Joseph. According to Jewish custom, she married her late husband’s brother. The brothers and sisters of Jesus are all the progeny of Mary and Clopas. In short, then: Mary of Nazareth=Mary mother of James and Joses=Mary wife of Clopas.
The “James, Jude and Simon” listed among the twelve disciples are actually Jesus’ brothers.
James becomes the successor of Jesus until his death in 62 CE. Simon succeeded James (presumably because he too was of the “Jesus Dynasty”). Eusebius and Epiphanius report that Jude succeeded Simon at Simon’s death in 106. The Apostolic Constitutions (From the 4th cent.) says this Jude was a brother of Jesus. This makes four of Jesus’ brothers succeeding him as leaders of the group.
Eusebius mentions two grandsons (possibly sons) of Jude who were questioned and released by Domitian (r. 81-96). After this the family of Jesus fades into history.
The predominance of the letters of Paul in the NT, and the Pauline book of Acts, obscures the history of Jewish Christianity (Gentile Christianity tended to minimize its connections to Judaism because of the trouble the Jewish people were giving Rome). The witnesses we have to this form of Christianity are found in Q, James, and Jude. Tabor says these texts “stand as witness to an original version of the Christian faith that takes us back to Jesus himself.”
I have some issues with Tabor’s methodology but I find some aspects of his argument worth considering. It’s certainly interesting to consider what happened to Jesus’ family and why the legacy was not as well-preserved in history as we might expect. We’ll turn later in the course to some later apocryphal texts which may have some connection to early Jewish Christianity, perhaps through the descendants of Jesus.
Posted in 2007 NTA Course, Orthodoxy and Heresy, Jewish-Christian Gospels | 
| Permalink
October 16th, 2007 at 5:47 pm
Something to add to the Jesus dynasty.
I remember reading something a while ago which stated that John the Apostle was Jesus’ cousin. I know its hard to tell definitively, but of course it is interesting; I dont buy the argument, but I like the ideas. I came across a different article on it which put’s out the same arguments (if I can remember correctly); this article is short but interesting. Here is the argument:
“Cousin John, the apostle John
Jesus Christ and the apostle John as cousins is not as obvious (people who have studied the Bible their entire lives have overlooked it, which is understandable because of how the proof is in pieces - I only discovered it myself a few years ago, in one of those eureka! moments), but the proof is there nevertheless, in two parts, each of which themselves are in two parts. Add them together and it becomes very clear.
First, standing among the women near the cross with Jesus’ mother Mary was Salome (as identified by the apostle Mark in his Gospel account), who was Mary’s sister (as the apostle John himself states in his Gospel account, as it turns out, about his own mother - Mark’s Gospel account refers to her by name, John’s Gospel account refers to her by her relationship to Mary), and therefore Salome was Jesus’ aunt:
“Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.” (John 19:25 KJV)
“There were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome” (Mark 15:40 KJV)
From the first part above we know that Salome was Mary’s sister. Now, second, Salome is then also identified the wife of Zebedee, as John is identified as the son of Zebedee. The picture is then complete. Salome is identified as Mary’s sister and John’s mother - John was therefore Jesus’ cousin.
“And going on from thence, he saw other two brethren, James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, in a ship with Zebedee their father” (Matthew 4:21 KJV)
“Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee’s children [i.e. Salome, as identified in the first part, above]” (Matthew 27:56 KJV)”
I like the words he uses; discovered, proof, pieces, overlooked, understandable, eureeka! He sounds pretty certain about it.
Professor, have you heard about this before? Or are you aware of any traditions about this?
Thanks
October 17th, 2007 at 12:03 am
You write:
“Creating apocrypha is not just a pursuit of “heretics”; and … Eusebius was gullible enough to believe this text authentic. And he makes this determination not because he has conducted the proper investigations to determine its authenticity … but because it fits the agenda of orthodox Christianity. It makes one wonder how much the selection of the NT texts was determined by the same motive.”
I wonder about the term “creating apocrypha”. Do you think that this is how they conceptualised what they were doing? Is it not possible that what they were doing was recording oral tradition that seemed authentic because it agreed with the orthodox position and had been handed on to them by what they regarded as reliable sources?
October 17th, 2007 at 12:56 pm
It is extremely difficult, perhaps impossible, to determine what sources, if any, the author of “The Discourse of John the Theologian about the falling-asleep of the holy Mother of God” (late 5th century) text utilized. Did the author rely on apostolic tradition or simply his imagination? Did the Church derive its doctrine of the Assumption from the story or did the story derive its content from apostolic tradition? Surely there is nothing in the canon of the New Testament that points to the Assumption of Mary. Roman Catholics acknowledge that the earliest known literary reference to the Assumption is found in apocrypha. Epiphanius (d. ca 403), an early Church Father, admitted that he knew nothing about the Assumption. The first known orthodox writings about the Assumption were produced by such early Church Fathers as Andrew of Crete (d. ca. 720-740) in the East and Gregory of Tours (d. ca. 593) in the West. Indeed Gregory of Tours is the earliest known orthodox theologian to write about the Assumption. He wrote, however, nearly a century after the apocryphal writing was produced!
Roman Catholics have always contended that the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary is based upon apostolic tradition. John of Damascus (d. ca. 754-787), a Greek Church Father, argued that Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, at the Council Chalcedon (451), made known to the Roman Emperor Marcian and his wife Pulcheria, who wished to have the body of the “Mother of God,” that Mary died in the presence of all the Apostles of Jesus but that her tomb, when opened, upon the request of the Apostle Thomas, was found empty. The Apostles concluded that the body was taken up to Heaven. The writer of the apocryphal work may have been well aware of the proclamation made by Bishop Juvenal. The apocryphal work, after all, originated in Jerusalem. There are, however, no extant literary accounts of the communication between Bishop Juvenal and the Roman leaders from the time of the Council of Chalcedon.
One could argue that the Assumption of Mary was not based upon apostolic tradition since there are no earlier orthodox writings of Church Fathers about this tradition. John of Damascus could have been quite aware of the apocryphal writing and simply invented the “Bishop-Emperor correspondence” to protect the integrity of the Assumption. The Assumption of Mary, nevertheless, may have in fact been a part of apostolic tradition prior to the apocryphal writing, yet Church Fathers only felt it necessary to confirm the doctrine as orthodoxy in light of the apocryphal writing. Finally, John of Damascus may in fact have been telling the truth, but Bishop Juvenal may have simply been basing his information on earlier apocryphal texts about Mary’s Assumption (e.g. The Book of Mary’s Repose – 3rd century).
The Assumption of Mary was not officially and infallibly declared to be Roman Catholic dogma until 1950! Roman Catholics have always maintained, unlike Protestants, that there is absolutely nothing wrong with church doctrines that are based solely upon apostolic tradition. The secular scholar can merely hypothesize which came first – the tradition or the story. The lines between orthodox tradition and apocrypha are certainly blurred and complex at times.
October 23rd, 2007 at 8:46 am
Thanks Matt for fillingin some details about the Dormition. It is certainly a text with a complex history. And Judy, you ask: “I wonder about the term ‘creating apocrypha’. Do you think that this is how they conceptualised what they were doing? Is it not possible that what they were doing was recording oral tradition that seemed authentic because it agreed with the orthodox position and had been handed on to them by what they regarded as reliable sources?” You seem to think my statement “creating apocrypha” is a negative one and excludes the possibility of including authentic oral tradition. This is not what I think, though I do see this particular apocryphon (the Abgar correspondence) as precisely that. My issue regarding Abgar is that the orthodox (ancient and modern) would criticize others for their apocryphal literature and consider it spurious but they were “guilty” of the same practice.
Finally, Emmanuel, I have not heard this “theory” before but I find it confusing in parts. First, he says “From the first part above we know that Salome was Mary’s sister. Now, second, Salome is then also identified the wife of Zebedee, as John is identified as the son of Zebedee. The picture is then complete. Salome is identified as Mary’s sister and John’s mother - John was therefore Jesus’ cousin.” But John does not say Salome is Mary’s sister (in fact it lists either a nameless sister or identifies the wife of Clopas as Mary *and* Mary of Nazareth’s sister). And Mark sepearates Salome from Mary, the mother of James and Joses (not John). Matthew distinguishes between the mother of the Zebedees and Mary the mother of James and Joses and does not mention Salome at all. So the argument does not work well. This all stemes from trying to reconcile the names of the women, assuming that all the gospel authors are correct. Perhaps they are not reconcilable at all.
October 24th, 2007 at 3:40 pm
It seems likely that Christian writers would not concern writing about the family of Jesus simply because that would make him more human. Whenever Jesus’ family comes up there is a lot of backpeddling involved - “Joseph had kids with a previous marriage so he never slept with Mary”, “Jesus was immaculately conceived so Joseph is his ’step-father’,” “Mary is descended from David, therefore the prophecy can be true, but Jesus can still be God’s son.” Simplifying the equation makes everything more believable especially when the apostles were focusing on spreading Christianity, instead of answering family questions.
Cheers,
Joshua
October 27th, 2007 at 3:39 pm
Hi Joshua
Christian writers may not have been concerned about the family of Jesus not because that would make him more human, but because their main focus was Jesus and his message. As well, one should not necessarily assume that Jesus actual had brothers. Some scholars have argued that sections of the Greek New Testament may have been translated from Aramaic. The Aramaic language no doubt had a significant influence on the New Testament. One could argue that all the New Testament Gospel authors, except Luke, were native Aramaic-speakers. Sometimes the Gospels reveal original Aramaic words (e.g., “Talitha cumi” in Mark 5:41). The original meaning of the Aramaic word for “brother” (aha) includes other close relations, including cousins. There was, in fact, no Aramaic word for “cousin.” The Greek word for brother (adelphos) could have been used when Aramaic versions of the Gospels were translated to Greek. This would explain why the Greek word for “cousin” (anepsios) is not used when the Gospels discuss the relatives of Jesus.
December 26th, 2007 at 7:07 pm
This all just points out how unreliable the whole ball of wax really is.