Honest Questions

Gramps49

How many siblings did Jesus have?

How many brothers?

How many sisters?

Why do these questions feel so uncomfortable to us moderns?

Nick Tamen

Gramps49 wrote: »

How many siblings did Jesus have?

How many brothers?

How many sisters?

Why do these questions feel so uncomfortable to us moderns?

Didn’t we have a discussion on this recently? I’m sure we did, but I can’t remember the thread.

Putting aside the question of whether those identified as “brothers of Jesus” means full- or half-brothers or cousins, I’m not sure anyone could say how many? Working from recollection, four “brothers” are named, but that doesn’t necessarily mean only four, nor does it speak to sisters.

And are we uncomfortable with these questions? Or any more uncomfortable than previous generations?

Nick Tamen

We did discuss it, starting (I think) here.

Lamb Chopped

Those questions don't bother me, why should they?

To the best of our knowledge, four brothers (James, Joses, Judas and Simon, and at least three sisters--see Matthew 13:56, where the word "pasai" "all" modifies "sisters.")

Boogie

Honest answer - nobody knows.

My answer - it doesn't matter.

BroJames

It doesn’t bother me either.

HarryCH

Okay, here is a question: How many children did Solomon have?

jay_emm

To the extent that it bothers me, the factors would be a mixture of (a) forgetting Mary has a life past Christmas. (b) A suspicion, in most cases that there's some dodgy motivation to the question.

For an absolute answer, personally I'm happy to wait till I die, and I'll be a bit annoyed if it's on the heavenly test.

All being equal, I'd personally treat the verses as being about Joseph&Mary's children. But it's not like I wouldn't treat similar sentences differently in very slightly different contexts (monestaries for instance, or even Paul's letters). Fundamentally it probably boils down to me finding a happy single marriage prettier to visualise than the alternatives. But I can adequately understand the catholic position (leading to the verses refering to step siblings or wider relatives) to not want to rule it out.


Verse wise, we have Matt 12:46 (his mother and brothers wanting to speak to him - followed by Jesus declaring all who do god's will his brothers and sisters, does that make the answer billions?)
Matt13, Mark 6:3 (brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon and all his sisters as referenced.above.)

--
As for Solomon, 28 grandsons and 60 granddaughters via Rehoboam (7 named)
But unless there's a secret list I've missed despite the 1000 wives/concubines "his son" seems to be identifyable (and evidently not that old when Solomon passes).

Lamb Chopped

Rehoboam was 40 (yeah, I don't know why that factoid stuck in my head!). Apparently some people can hit 40 and still act like entitled teenagers without a brain in their heads.

Lamb Chopped

Meh, just looked it up. Forty-one! Which is worse.

jay_emm

And it names which of Solomon's wives(/concubines) was his mum. An ammonite rather than Pharaoh's daughter who he packs away on 'religous grounds'.

And yet the counsellors are (it seems in 2 Chr 10) described as both being young men (rather than like young) and also contemporary with him. I know the whole life-expectency thing is a exaggeration and we're talking of an end of career job. But it feels like it ought to be odd.

Lamb Chopped

The "packing away" bit--I thought Solomon just moved her out of the city? Can't recall.

jay_emm

That's the passage I was thinking of. That's the wording it uses.

He moves her out of the city, after suddenly remembering that the Ark has been there, and presumably not going with her to her new house.

Nick Tamen

jay_emm wrote: »

.All being equal, I'd personally treat the verses as being about Joseph&Mary's children. But it's not like I wouldn't treat similar sentences differently in very slightly different contexts (monestaries for instance, or even Paul's letters). Fundamentally it probably boils down to me finding a happy single marriage prettier to visualise than the alternatives. But I can adequately understand the catholic position (leading to the verses refering to step siblings or wider relatives) to not want to rule it out.

I tend to go with the assumptions that Jesus’s brothers and sisters were Joseph’s children from a previous marriage. That’s partially because of the antiquity of that view, and partially because I think it makes the most sense of John 19:26–27: “When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing beside her, he said to his mother, ‘Woman, here is your son.’ Then he said to the disciple, ‘Here is your mother.’ And from that hour the disciple took her into his own home.” Entrusting Mary to John’s care doesn’t make as much sense to me if Mary had other sons, because the oldest of those sons would have been responsible for her.

To be honest, I also think John 7:1–9 reads like older brothers, older half- or step-brothers even, giving the younger one a hard time. I hear shades of the dynamics between the older sons of Jacob and Joseph.

But the operative words here are that I “tend to go with the assumption” that the brothers and sisters were Joseph’s from a previous marriage. I’m not particularly invested that position or hold it tightly, nor would I ever suggest the assumption is unquestionably correct. If I were to learn or be convinced differently, it wouldn’t change a thing about my faith.

Lamb Chopped

jay_emm wrote: »

That's the passage I was thinking of. That's the wording it uses.

He moves her out of the city, after suddenly remembering that the Ark has been there, and presumably not going with her to her new house.

Well, he's a king with a lot of wives, etc. and I doubt he lived with any of them. He'd be visiting them whenever he wanted to ah, make whoopie. I'd be shocked if Solomon didn't have multiple wives already at this point, though probably all local before this point; and this one in particular is a foreign political alliance. I expect it looked good for the general public ("Oh dear, she's not Jewish, whatever shall I do?") and at the same time it allows him to avoid divorcing her--I think kings were supposed to avoid marrying foreign women who didn't convert, weren't they? Can't recall the spot.) And in the future, it was even more convenient to have the foreign wives outside the city, as it offered plenty of room for their idols' temples! Bleagh.