Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Catholic
History and Religion
Hegesippus (2nd c.) and the “Brothers” of Jesus

Hegesippus (2nd c.) and the “Brothers” of Jesus

Last updated on: January 6, 2023 at 12:28 am by Dave Armstrong

0 Comments

Hegesippus (2nd c.) and the “Brothers” of Jesus 2023-01-06T00:28:43-04:00 Dave Armstrong

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Including a “New” Argument from How Jesus is Described in Relation to Mary and Joseph

This is a follow-up to my article, Dialogue w a Protestant on Mary’s Perpetual Virginity (II): Biblical Proof That Three Named “Brethren” of Jesus Are Non-Siblings + Harmonious 2nd Century Evidence Regarding the Fourth (Simon) [1-3-23].

*****

In the previous effort, I set forth the opinions of Church historian Hegesippus (c. 110 – c. 180) regarding the brothers of Jesus (particularly, Simon, or Symeon: see Acts 15:14; 2 Pet 1:1). Eusebius, in his History of the Church, documents Hegesippus’ words as follows:

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 Saviour. For Hegesippus records that Clopas was a brother of Joseph. (Book III, section 11, parts 1-2; translated by Arthur Cushman McGiffert. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 1. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. [1890], pp. 123-124 in the version translated by G. A. Williamson, Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1965; cf. Book III, section 32, part 4: “Mary, the wife of Clopas, who was the father of Symeon” and Book III, section 32, part 1: “Symeon, the son of Clopas”)

Hegesippus also describes the beginnings of the heresies that arose in his time, in the following words, rescued from oblivion by Eusebius:

And after James the Just had suffered martyrdom, as the Lord had also on the same account, Symeon, the son of the Lord’s uncle, Clopas, was appointed the next bishop. All proposed him as second bishop because he was a cousin of the Lord. (Book IV, section 22, part 4; Williamson translation, p. 181)

According to Hegesippus, Simon, or Symeon was (like James and Joseph: see Mt 13:55; 27:56; Mk 6:3; 15:40) also a son of Clopas and the “other Mary” (uncle and aunt to Jesus); therefore also a cousin of Jesus and not a sibling. But many point out that Hegesippus appears to regard James and Jude as Jesus’ siblings. Maybe; or maybe not . . .

James B. Prothro is an Assistant Professor of Scripture and Theology. His academic work “focuses on the letters and thought of the Apostle Paul and on the ancient Greek language.” He obtained a Ph.D. in New Testament from the University of Cambridge and an MA in classics and MDiv in theology from other universities.

He wrote an article entitled, “Semper Virgo? A Biblical Review of a Debated Dogma” (Pro Ecclesia: A Journal of Catholic and Evangelical Theology, Vol. 28, Issue 1, March 7, 2019). Here are his comments about Hegesippus:

The more reliable second-century writer sometimes cited here is Hegesippus, fragments of whose chronicles are preserved by Eusebius. Hegesippus is cited not because he explicitly claims Jesus’ “brothers” were Josephs’ sons, but because (a) he refers to James as “the Lord’s brother” and says Jude was “called” (λεγόμενος) [legomenos] Jesus’ brother according to the flesh (Eusebius, HE [History of the Church] 3.20.1)—which some think implies a lack of consanguinity—and (b) he can use broader terms like “cousins” for other relatives; so the surmise is that he viewed these as closer than cousins but not full brothers. However, Hegesippus may rather suggest a different view. In one passage, Hegesippus speaks of Symeon (=Simon) being appointed bishop in Jerusalem after James (apparently appointed with input from Jesus’ other relatives, cf. Eusebius, HE 3.11–12). Symeon is Jesus’ putative cousin (ἀνεψιός) [anepsios], son of Joseph’s brother Clopas (cf. John 19:25). But notably this same descriptor could go also to James, the “brother of the Lord”: after James died, Hegesippus reports, Συμεὼν ὁ τοῦ Κλωπᾶ καθίσταται ἐπίσκοπος, ὃν προέθεντο πάντες, ὄντα ἀνεψιὸν τοῦ κυρίου δεύτερον [“Simeon son of Clopas becomes a bishop, whom everyone nominated, being a cousin of the Lord”] (Eusebius, HE 4.22.4). Bauckham reads δεύτερον [deuteros/ “the second, the other of two”] as a predicate complement to προέθεντο [“past”], making Symeon a further “bishop.” But δεύτερον appears rather to be in the supplemental participial clause with ὤν [ón / “be, come, have”] (a common idiom for adding pertinent identity information), modifying ἀνεψιόν. This would result in the following translation: “Symeon son of Clopas was appointed bishop, whom all commended, being another cousin of the Lord.” If this reading is correct, Hegesippus understands not only Symeon but also James, whose title as Jesus’ “brother” he elsewhere repeats, to have been in fact his cousin. If one trusts his purported knowledge of Jesus’ family and their descendants (cf. HE 3.19.1–20.6)—or at least reasons that he is unlikely to have invented such information whole cloth—then one finds warrant to explore broader relationships between Jesus and his “brothers and sisters.”

[Footnote: πάλιν [“again”] may suggest Hegesippus is saying Symeon is another child of Jesus’ uncle: first, James has never had a cousin be bishop; second, it seems closer to Hegesippus’ purpose to trace kinship of the first Jerusalem bishops to Jesus (rather than relating Symeon to James), . . . ]

The skeptical argument regarding the Catholic interpretation laid out by Dr. Prothro above, is to ask why Hegesippus referred to James and Joseph as Jesus’ “brothers” (adelphoi), but called Simon a “cousin”? Wouldn’t he have also called the former “cousins” (syngenis or anepsios) if in fact he believed all of them were? It doesn’t necessarily follow that he would or must do that. How can I say that? I can because of the use of these words in the Gospels (including Jesus’ own).

I laid out the standard biblical “case” for James and Joseph being Jesus’ cousins in my previous installment of this series. It seems to me a fairly compelling exegetical argument. If one accepts it, then we have an instance of the Gospel writers referring (many times) to literal cousins as “brothers.” Arguably, also, we have Jesus referring to these same described “brothers” as “cousins.” That was also argued in my previous paper, with the aid of a commenter:

Mark 6:4 And Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor, except in his own country, and among his own kin [(συγγενής, ές / suggenes)], and in his own house.” (cf. Jn 7:5: “For even his brothers did not believe in him.”)

He [Alex Lielbardis] added:

The plural Greek word used refers to kinsfolk, relatives, or fellow countrymen. This same word is used by Luke in his account of the Annunciation which in the singular form specifically means a cousin: “And behold, your kinswoman [συγγενίς / syngenis] Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son; and this is the sixth month with her who was called barren” (Luke 1:36). Thus, Jesus apparently replies with his cousins (relatives or kin) in mind, in response to what was said by those who were offended at him.

The context of this incident was His preaching in His hometown of Nazareth. Both Mark (6:3) and the parallel text in Matthew (13:55-56), in the immediate context mention four “brothers” of Jesus” and also, unnamed “sisters.” Jesus was catching flak from these relatives in His hometown. Both Matthew and Mark record Jesus as saying in response that a “prophet” is not honored “in his own house.” That would be these “brothers” (Jewish families of this time including members of the extended family, not usually just a nuclear family, as I also recently demonstrated).

In Mark, it’s recorded that Jesus specifically identified “kin” as among those who oppose a prophet. The word Jesus used is συγγενής, ές (suggenes): which also can be translated as “cousin.” It seems clear in context that He is referring to these “brothers” who are also described as living in Jesus’ “house.” Therefore, he described these “brothers” as suggenes, whereas the two Gospel writers call them “brothers” and “sisters” (adelphoi). In 32 translations of Mark 6:4, suggenes (“kin” in the RSV) is translated as “relatives”.

The parallelism is obvious by comparing these two Bible passages:

Mark 6:4 (RSV) . . . A prophet is not without honor, except . . . among his own kin [συγγενής, ές / suggenes] . . .

John 7:5 For even his brothers [adelphoi] did not believe in him.

In another incident at Nazareth, after Jesus claimed to be the Messiah in the synagogue (Lk 4:16-21), the townspeople (including possibly some of these “brothers” for all we know) were scandalized by His claim and “filled with wrath” (4:28), and again, Jesus said, “Truly, I say to you, no prophet is acceptable in his own country” (Lk 4:24). They then tried to kill Him:

Luke 4:29 And they rose up and put him out of the city, and led him to the brow of the hill on which their city was built, that they might throw him down headlong.

Thus we see that [what I believe to be cousins, based on all my reasoning and various arguments] are called “cousins” or “kin” in one place in the Bible (by Jesus) and “brothers” in many other places (from the narrator evangelists). This proves that both terms were proper, in describing cousins or other non-sibling relatives. If the Bible can display this latitude of language, then I submit that Hegesippus in the next century can also do so. He could possibly call Jude and James “brothers” of the Lord, meaning “cousin”, and also call Simon a “cousin” of the Lord (with the literal meaning of that term). It’s not impossible. Goose and gander . . .

Another little interesting tidbit to ponder, is how two Gospel writers (recording spoken words) described Jesus and His brothers in relation to Mary:

Mark 6:3 “Is not this 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.

Matthew 13:55 “Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?”

Can you see what I’m driving at by my use of blue font? I never thought of this until today, when I saw it in one commentary. It’s the singular use of “son” in describing Jesus. This would seem to (at the very least, possibly) suggest “only son.” It’s in the context of mentioning four of His “brothers” and also “sisters” in Mark. Now, if they are all understood to be — and were in fact — His siblings, why is He called “the son of Mary” and “the carpenter’s son”? Note also that in both passages, only He is called Mary’s “son” and also Joseph’s (in Matthew). The others are not.

It seems to me (maybe I’m weird), as an argument from implausibility, that this is not the language we would expect God to inspire the evangelists to use (remember, we’re talking about divinely inspired revelation), if in fact, Jesus had siblings. It would have been easy as pie for these passages to read so clearly, so manifestly plain, that there never would have been any dispute about the nature of the “brothers” of Jesus. All it would have taken would be a few changes of words. I submit that the passages would have read something like the following, if Jesus had siblings:

Mark 6:3 [Liberal Protestant Version: LPV] “Is not this the carpenter, one of the sons of Mary, along with his brothers James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him.

Matthew 13:55 “Is not this one of the carpenter’s sons? Is not his mother and the mother of his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas called Mary?”

One good reason why at least James and Joseph are not described as the Blessed Virgin Mary’s son in these passages, is because they are specifically called in other passages the sons of “the other Mary”: who is called a “sister” of Jesus’ mother Mary. The Bible is self-consistent as always.

Simple; easy; elementary. Instead, we get “the son of Mary” and “the carpenter’s son”: even when “brothers” are being discussed in the same context. These “brothers” and “sisters” are neither described as sons or daughters of Mary, nor of Joseph. Only Jesus is, using the singular “son.”

This factor, along with some dozen other arguments, of varying degrees of strength (and I’ve written about as many as I could find), produce an overall case that is (like many of the biblical arguments for Catholicism, which I have specialized in for these past 32 years) very strong in its cumulative effect, just as a rope becomes stronger each time an additional strand is added to it.

***

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,000+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

***

Photo credit: Madonna and Child (c. 1743), by Pompeo Batoni (1708-1787) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Summary: Continued defense of Mary’s perpetual virginity, including examining more closely the second century witness of Hegesippus for Simon being Jesus’ cousin.

Blessed Virgin Mary

Fathers of the Church

Immaculate Conception

Mary's Perpetual Virginity

Nativity

perpetual virginity

Perpetual Virginity of Mary

Theotokos

virgin birth

Virgin Mary

virginity during childbirth

Previous Post

January 3, 2023

Dialogue w a Protestant on Mary’s Perpetual Virginity (II)

Next Post

January 9, 2023 How Do Atheists Define an Alleged "Biblical Contradiction"?

Recent Comments

0 | Leave a Comment

"Special pleading, and not a serious response to my arguments . . ."

Dave Armstrong

Is Venerating Men & Angels Worship? ..."

""no man needs to teach us."Didn't you just teach us?"

Dave Armstrong

Is Venerating Men & Angels Worship? ..."

""Catholics say they are the only church that can lead people into heaven."In fact, we ..."

Dave Armstrong

Is Venerating Men & Angels Worship? ..."

"And lastly, I belong to no denomination and am free to serve God as He ..."

Mariah

Is Venerating Men & Angels Worship? ..."

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category & Last Things About Me Anti-Catholicism Atheism & Agnosticism Baptism and Sacramentalism Bible and Tradition Blessed Virgin Mary Books by Dave Armstrong C. S. Lewis Calvinism & General Protestantism Catholic Apologetics Catholic Apologists Catholic conversion Catholic converts Christmas Church (Ecclesiology) Church History Conversion and Converts Development of Doctrine Eastern Orthodoxy Ecumenism & Christian Unity Eucharist & Liturgy Fathers of the Church French Translations G. K. Chesterton Hell Hell & Satan Hell & Satan & Last Things Heresies & Comparative Religion Holistic Health Inquisition & Crusades & Scandals James White Jews & Judaism & Old Testament John Calvin John Henry Newman Liberal / Modernist Theology Life Issues Literary Resume Lutheranism Mariology Martin Luther Music Orthodoxy Papacy & Infallibility Personal Page Philosophy & Science Political & Ethical & Moral Issues Protestant Persecution & Intolerance Protestantism Purgatory Purgatory & Penance Romantic & Imaginative Theology Saints & Purgatory & Penance Salvation Salvation & Justification Satan & Last Things Sexuality and Gender Issues Spanish Translations Traditionalism vs. Radical Catholic Reactionaries Traducciones al español / tradução para português Trinitarianism & Christology Uncategorized Videos

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 April 2010 March 2010 December 2009 October 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 March 2009 February 2009 October 2008 September 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 May 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 October 2005 June 2005 April 2005 February 2005 July 2004 May 2004 April 2004

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz