Did Jesus Really Have Brothers and Sisters?

Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are his sisters here with us?”

–Mark 6:3

Gottlieb_Christ_preaching_at_CapernaumDID JESUS HAVE BROTHERS AND SISTERS? The Gospel of Mark would seem to say so.

And not only in the Gospel of Mark.  In Luke 8:19-21, the topic comes up again. Jesus is told by a crowd gathered to hear him speak.  The crowd says,

Your mother and your brothers are standing outside, wanting to see you.”

But Jesus, rather than inviting the rest of his family to come on in, dismisses them–using the opportunity to teach about the closeness he feels toward those who keep his word. “Who are my mother and my brothers?” he asks. “My mother and my brothers are those who hear the word of God and do it.”

* * * * *

Among Protestant scripture scholars, there are some who point to verses like this as clear evidence that Mary did, in fact, have other children with Joseph after giving birth to Jesus. Biblical scholar James Tabor (Chair of Religious Studies, U-NC Charlotte) lists them on his blog: James, Joses, Judas, and Simon and, by some accounts, Mary and Salome.

The Catholic Church, however, rejects such claims–which fly in the face of the Church’s dogmatic teaching about the perpetual virginity of Mary.

So where do Catholics get this idea that Mary never had sex, never bore other children? And why would Joseph have accepted that agreement, anyway?

* * * * *


In everyday speech, it’s not uncommon to refer to someone as your “brother” when there is no physical blood relationship. Two native Americans may call one another “brother,” although they are not related; two African-Americans may do likewise. We Christians are all “brothers in Christ.” The term “brother” may refer to someone with whom you share a blood relationship; or it may refer to someone who is not biologically related, but with whom you share a common friendship or an ethnic bond.

In the Scriptures, the same is true. The Greek term for “brother”, “adelphos,” may refer not only to blood relatives, but also to distant cousins or, more widely, to others with whom one shares a spiritual bond.

Consider, for example, Genesis 13:8:

So Abram said to Lot, “Let’s not have any quarreling between you and me, or between your herdsmen and mine, for we are brothers.”

In this instance the term “brother” is used to describe Abraham and Lot—who are not biological brothers but are, rather, uncle and nephew.

And St. Paul, writing his first letter to the Corinthians (15:6), describes the people who saw Jesus after his Resurrection, including his “brothers”:

Then, he

[Jesus] appeared to more than five hundred brothers at the same time, many of whom are with us still, but some have fallen asleep.”

Surely, Paul wasn’t trying to claim that Mary had given birth to more than 500 children!

* * * * *

But there are other ways, as well, that the Gospel writers prove that Jesus was an only child.

We know, from the Gospels and from the Acts of the Apostles, as well as from ancient texts, what happened to the Twelve after the Resurrection of Christ. We read of their exploits, spreading the Gospel in foreign lands; suffering martyrdom rather than denying Jesus, whom they know to be the Christ. We know how they died, and where they are buried.

Do the Gospels tell us anything regarding Jesus’ brothers? Nope, nothing, nada.

Standing at the foot of the Cross were Mary, mother of Jesus, the two other Marys—Mary of Cleophas and Mary Magdalen—and the apostle John. As he was dying, Jesus gave Mary to John. His words were “Woman, behold your son.” And to John, he said, “Behold your mother.” And from that hour the disciple took her into his home. (John 19:26-27).

If Jesus had had other brothers and sisters, wouldn’t they have been there with him, standing alongside his mother? And wouldn’t they have assumed responsibility for their mother, taking her into their homes?

If there had been another blood relative who could provide for Mary, why would Jesus have entrusted her to John?

Another hint: The “brothers” of Jesus cited in John 2:1 and Acts 1:14 are never called the children of Mary, although Jesus himself is.

* * * * *


There is yet another reason, though, why we should believe that Mary did not bear other children. That is the consensus of the early Church.

Remember that Jesus promised that he would send the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, who would guide his Church and preserve her from error. Without that promise of Christ, his followers and their descendants could veer farther and farther from Truth, losing their way altogether through false teachings and misguided prophecies. However, we do have Christ’s promise that he would be with us always, until the end of time. With the protection of the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity and of the Holy Spirit, we can rest assured that the Church will preserve the Gospel message with fidelity.

From the earliest days following the Resurrection, the Church has believed that Mary was a perpetual virgin, and that Jesus had no biological brothers or sisters.

A non-canonical but highly respected work from around 150 A.D., the Protoevangelium of James, speaks of Mary as a consecrated virgin since her youth. The Protoevangelium explains that St. Joseph was an elderly widower with children, who was chosen to be Mary’s spouse for the purposes of guarding and protecting her, while respecting her vow of virginity.

That viewpoint—that Joseph had children by a previous marriage, who became step-siblings to Jesus—was shared in the fourth century by Epiphanius, bishop of Salamis.  It is also believed by many in the Orthodox Church today.

Athanasius of Alexandria, in his Four Discourses Against the Arians, wrote in A.D. 360:

Therefore let those who deny that the Son is from the Father by nature and proper to his essence deny also that he took true human flesh of Mary Ever-Virgin.”

St. Jerome, writing in A.D. 383 about the Perpetual Virginity of Mary in a debate with Helvidius, said:

You say that Mary did not continue a virgin: I claim still more that Joseph himself, on account of Mary was a virgin, so that from a virgin wedlock a virgin son was born.”

And in the next century, Pope St. Leo I delivered a sermon in which he said:

The origin is different but the nature alike: not by intercourse with man but by the power of God was it brought about: for a Virgin conceived, a Virgin bore, and a Virgin she remained.”

Today, the Catechism of the Catholic Church (501) reconfirms the same point:

Jesus is Mary’s only son, but her spiritual motherhood extends to all men whom indeed he came to save: “The Son whom she brought forth is he whom God placed as the first-born among many brethren, that is, the faithful in whose generation and formation she co-operates with a mother’s love.”


Image:  Christ Preaching at Capernaum, by Maurycy Gottlieb [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

By |2018-01-27T17:39:31+00:00May 24th, 2016|Faith|

Share This Story, Choose Your Platform!


  1. Darlene June 14, 2016 at 8:17 am - Reply

    Mary is the spouse of the Holy Spirit. She could never have had a child by anyone else. That would have been adultery as this spousal relationship never ended.

  2. Darlene June 14, 2016 at 8:15 am - Reply

    Mary was the spouse of the Holy Spirit. She could never become a widow of this Spouse. Therefore she would have committed adultery if she had conceived a child by anyone else.

  3. hugh davey June 13, 2016 at 4:14 pm - Reply

    if you dont know by now i am not going to tell you …

  4. Trinidad June 13, 2016 at 10:36 am - Reply

    The uncritical use of 2nd and 3rd Century documents to prove a doctrinal case merely weakens the argument.

    “We know, from the Gospels and from the Acts of the Apostles, as well as from ancient texts, what happened to the Twelve after the Resurrection of Christ. We read of their exploits, spreading the Gospel in foreign lands; suffering martyrdom rather than denying Jesus, whom they know to be the Christ. We know how they died, and where they are buried”

    We know a great deal about Paul, something of Peter and a little about John and James from the Acts but to use later documents as if they had the same validity is poor scholarship and dubious orthodoxy. These later traditions are hagiographical stories without any historical basis..

    “A non-canonical but highly respected work from around 150 A.D., the Protoevangelium of James”

    This work is non-canonical but hardly highly respected. It is an apocryphal writing not unlike many other writings produced to fill in the gaps left in the canonical Gospels. It incorporates elements from the infancy accounts of Matthew and Luke and embellishes them with strange and incredulous stories that stand in contrast to the measured and sober accounts of the real Gospels. These apocryphal accounts are quite often bizarre in their episodes and even heretical in their theology. They were rightly omitted from the genuine canon of Scripture. To use them as if they represented real history is to give credence to what are little more than pious fictions. Read them to understand what I am saying.

  5. Jacob May 29, 2016 at 8:13 pm - Reply

    Just a few thoughts that might help clear up some objections. In Gal 1:19, St. Paul describes James, the bishop of Jerusalem, as an Apostle and the brother of the Lord. In fact, among the Apostles there is a James of Alphaeus. His mother was present at the crucifixion and is there called Mary, the mother of James; she is even called “the mother of James and Joseph.” This same Mary is called the “sister” of Mary, the mother of Jesus, and she is also called the “other” Mary, indicating a close connection with the family of Jesus. In the lists of the Apostles, “Jude of James” is often translated as “son of James” but that is an interpretation, not a translation. In fact, in his letter, St. Jude describes himself as the “brother” of James, and what other person would be recognized by that title except the brother of the bishop of Jerusalem whose father was Alphaeus? (Jude was too humble to call himself the “brother” of the Lord as he was known among the Christians.) Thus, James, Jude and Joseph were sons of Mary, the sister-in-law of the virgin Mary. It might be pointed out that she is called Mary of Cleophas (which again is interpreted as wife of Cleophas, but from all the evidence, she was the daughter of Cleophas and so distinguished from Mary, the wife of Joseph.) As you have pointed out in your article, however, any simple searcher of the truth should know that Jesus was an only son simply by the fact that he took it upon himself to leave his mother in the care of someone who was not his brother in the English sense of the word.

  6. […] Did Jesus Really Have Brothers and Sisters? – Kathy Schiffer, Seasons of Grace Marriage: an Imperfect Image of Christ and His Church – Fr. Basil Cole O.P., Truth and Charity Forum Quæritur: Is Divorce Never An Option? – Fr. John Zuhlsdorf, Fr. Z’s Blog Exorcist: There’s a Demon That Specializes in Attacking the Family – National Cthlc Register What Does Scripture, Church Teaching Say About Building Wealth? – Phil Lenahan Top Ten Kierkegaardian Movies – Ben Wilson A Reminder that Sin Is Not an Inclination, as We are Created for Good – Kathryn Jean Lopez Memento Mori, Thoughts on Growing Old – Bob Kurland Ph.D., Reflections of a Catholic. . . The Electric Burner: A Thurifer’s Best Friend – Louis J. Tofari, Romanitas Press A Pattern for Catholic Education that Places the Liturgy at Its Heart – David Clayton, N.L.M. Restless Hearts: Satisfied by Eros and Agape – Veronica Arntz, Truth and Charity Forum For the ST. PETER & PROPHET MUHAMMAD MON. EDITION (May 23, 2016) click here. For the SUNDAY MORNING EDITION (May 29, 2016) click here. For the SUNDAY AFTERNOON EDITION (May 29, 2016) click here. […]

Leave A Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Toggle Sliding Bar Area