Was Mary a perpetual Virgin? Did Jesus have brothers and sisters ?

Jesus was the eldest child of Mary. He had 4 brothers and 2 sisters. Mark (6:3) names the brothers as James, Joseph, Judas and Simon. He also mentions 2 sisters but does not name them. Early Christian tradition names them as Mary and Salome.

The early christians under the leadership of Paul and later Augustine were taught that human sexuality was degrading and unholy at worst, and a necessary evil to be struggled against. (T: 73-76) [More about this when we will discuss Paul’s theology/philosophy]. So Mary was made a perpetual virgin who never had any sexual relations to keep her at an elevated position. 

The Western Catholic Church explained these siblings of Jesus as “cousin brothers and sisters” while the Eastern Church claimed that these were the children of Joseph by a previous marriage. In fact the Western theologians made Joseph a “lifelong virgin” as well since the average catholic would be scandalized and shocked to hear that Joseph and Mary had a normal sex life as a married couple.

St. Joseph

It is probable that Joseph was much older than Mary. After the birth of Jesus, Joseph disappears from the scene. The gospels mention Jesus’ “mother and brothers” a number of times but not Joseph. As per the Torah or the Law of Moses, if a person died childless, the oldest surviving unmarried brother was obliged to marry his diseased brother’s widow and bear a child in his name.

If Joseph died childless, the possibility was that his brother Clophas married Mary and had the 6 children. Tabor (p 77-79) analyses a number of passages in the bible to show that Clophas could be the father of Jesus’ siblings.

According to Tabor, what is certain is the following: Joseph was not the father of Jesus; Mary’s pregnancy by an unnamed man was ‘illegitimate’ by societal norms; Jesus had 4 half-brothers and 2 half- sisters, all children of Mary, but from a different father – Joseph or his brother Clophas.

Some hints from the gospels about Jesus’ illegitimate birth

One

David and Bathsheba

Judah and Tamar

Any standard Jewish genealogy at the time of Jesus was based only on male lineage. Yet in Mathew’s account of Jesus’ genealogy (1: 2-16) 4 women connected to 4 males are listed: Judah and Tamar, Salmon and Rehab, Boaz and Ruth, and David and Uriah’s wife. Each of these women had a scandalous sexual reputation. Tamar, dressed herself up as a roadside prostitute and enticed her own father-in-law. Rehab was the madam of a brothel. Ruth crawled into the bed of Boaz after getting him drunk. Uriah’s wife had an adulterous relationship with King David and ended up pregnant. She was the infamous Bathsheba.

They don’t belong in a normal genealogy. They stand out because of their shocking sexual details. It seems Mathew is trying to put the scandalous birth of Jesus in the context of his fore-fathers and fore-mothers. The last line gives the entire game away: Mathew writes:

Jacob fathered Joseph, the husband of Mary, from her was fathered Jesus called Christ.

What should appear in a normal genealogy would have been:

Jacob fathered Joseph, Joseph fathered Jesus, called the Christ.  (T: p 49, 50.)

Mathew uses the verb fathered (begot) 39 times in the active voice with a masculine subject. When it comes to Joseph, he used the same verb in the passive voice with a feminine object. So a fifth woman unexpectedly gets into the list: Mary herself! (T: P 51)

Two

The gospel of John describes in chapter 8 a debate Jesus had with some of his believers. At one point, when it became quite acrimonious, they tell him: “we were not born of fornication; we have one father, even God” (John 8: 41) implying that Jesus was an illegitimate child. [The Good News Bible that I use has edited out the sentence ‘we were not born of fornication’.]

Three

Calling Jesus in the gospels ‘the son of Mary’ indicates an unnamed father. Among Jews, children are always referred to as sons and daughters of the father, not the mother.

Four

Was Jesus’ rebuke of Mary on a number of occasions a sign of his bitterness towards her for his illegitimate birth? (Luke 8: 19-21; 11: 27-28)

Among the Jews of Jesus’ time, if your conception was not legitimate, you are going to stand out. They had a word for it – mamzer. It meant questionable paternity. Everyone who sees you will think “There goes that Jesus kid, the one whose mother…” (choose from the following)

·         slept with that Roman.

·         was raped by that Roman.

·         had intercourse when she shouldn’t.

·         claims she was impregnated from God.  (G; p76)

Life would be difficult for that child. A mamzer in effect was an untouchable.

Edward Edinger

Edward Edinger (1972), a Jungian Psychiatrist ‘believes that Jesus exhibited the characteristics of an illegitimate child.’ (G; p76)

Jesus who? Myth vs Reality

To understand Paul’s message and its problematic nature, one needs to learn about Jesus and his mission on earth.

According to James Gardner who wrote the book “Jesus who? Myth vs Reality” there is the religious Jesus and the historical Jesus. The historical Jesus is invisible, hiding as he does in the shadow of the religious Jesus who is all around us. What are the myths, and what is the reality?

Although many have questioned the very existence of Jesus, most authorities these days agree that such an individual existed. What is questioned is the information that is passed down as ‘gospel truths’ sourced from the New Testament. When weighed against historical evidence, they do not often tally with the findings of history. Some pieces of information come into existence out of ignorance but many are woven deliberately into the narrative to fit certain agenda.

I would like to discuss a few such inaccuracies and myths surrounding Jesus the man and Jesus the savior based on my readings of Tabor and Gardner.

(Hereafter, for reference, I will use ‘T’ for Tabor and ‘G’ for Gardner followed by the relevant page/s)

What was Jesus’ name?

Yeshua (Joshua) ben Yoseph, Jesus son of Joseph. When the Greeks translated his name, it became Jesus and it stuck. He was regarded as the messiah, meaning the anointed one. Since in Greek the word for the oil used for anointment was khrisma and the person anointed khristos, Yeshua ben Yoseph became Jesus Christ! (G; p 51, 52)

When was Jesus born?

Jesus was not born in 0 A.D. His probable date could be somewhere between 6 B.C. and 3 B.C.

Was Jesus conceived of the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary? Who was Jesus’ biological father?

Christians and in particular, Catholics, are very sensitive about the questions of Jesus’ virgin birth and the legitimacy or otherwise of his birth.

That Mary became pregnant with Jesus by the Holy Spirit is physically impossible. It was added much later to the gospel narrative to elevate Mary to a position far above the normal woman. This was to suit a specific agenda. With the coming of monastic life, virginity and celibacy became holier and more pleasing in the sight of God as compared to married life. (More about this later). 

Prophet Isaiah had foretold that a “virgin will conceive and give birth to a son”. Unfortunately there was a mistranslation. The original Hebrew word almah (young girl or young woman) had been mistakenly translated into the Greek parthenos (virgin). (G; p 69. T; p 46)

Regarding Jesus’ father, two possibilities, one charitable and the other rather scandalous, emerge.

To understand both, one needs to look at the Jewish world of the time. Jews were divided into four sects based on their way of life and beliefs: Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, and the Zealots.

The Pharisees believed that God was in control of everything, there is an afterlife, and that there will be the eternal judgement of the departed souls. They were more integrated with the common folk.

The Sadducees denied the afterlife and put their emphasis on life in this world. They did not believe that God controls everything. Humans freely choose either good or evil and they are rewarded accordingly. The Sadducees were elite and aristocratic and belonged to the priestly class.

The Essenes consisted of a brotherhood of holy men and women, living together in a community. They practiced initiation rites involving baptism and sacred meals. They were anti-Roman and detested both the Pharisees and the Sadducees. They expected the end of the world to happen soon and were awaiting the arrival of two messiahs – a Priestly figure and a Davidic King. (They later turned out to be John the Baptist and Jesus respectively).

The Zealots were the followers of Judas the Galilean. Judas was a fiery figure who preached that God was the only master and that they should throw off the yoke of Roman rule.

According to Gardner, Mary and Joseph, are believed to have belonged to the ultra-orthodox Essenes sect. Mary became pregnant following the first marriage ceremony of the Essenes. As unorthodox as this was, they received the blessings of the Essenes leadership and proceeded to the second marriage ceremony before which Jesus was born.

However, Tabor (p 40-46; 64-69) has a different version of Mary’s pregnancy. Mary lived with her parents Ana and Joachim in the town of Sepphoris, close to Nazareth. 

             Herod the Great

In 4 B.C, when she would have been about 14/15, Herod the Great died. Shortly after, a certain Judas, son of Ezekias, led a revolt against Rome. The Romans reacted quickly and harshly. They burned Sepphoris to the ground, put the inhabitants to slavery and crucified 2000 men. At the time of revolt, Mary was considered a woman and pledged in marriage to a local artisan named Joseph. However, Mary became pregnant. Joseph still accepted Mary and adopted her son. According to Mathew (1: 25) the couple had sexual relations only after the child was born, implying that Jesus was an illegitimate child. 

So who is the biological father of Jesus?

    Celsus

Tabor quotes the historian/philosopher Celsus who in an anti-Christian work titled “On the true doctrine” (178 A.D.) claims that Mary was pregnant by a Roman soldier by name Tiberius Iulius Abdes  Pantera. During times of war, pillage and rape by the victorious soldiers is a common phenomenon. Perhaps Joseph continued to accept Mary since he realized that she was not at fault.

   Tomb of Panthera

Who is Apostle Paul?

Paul was born in A.D. 4 (or 5) at Tarsus to Jewish parents. He was named Saul after the first king of Israel. Paul is his Roman surname, meaning ‘small’. The family was into tent making. His father being rich and influential, managed to get Roman citizenship which Paul inherited by birth. His father had the means to send his son to Jerusalem to study with Gamaliel, the leading rabbi of the day.

He was a contemporary of Jesus, but never met him.

He had a ‘conversion experience’ in A.D. 36. On the way to Damascus he had a “vision” of Jesus. “He said he had received both a revelation and a commission - that Jesus was the heavenly exalted “Christ” and that he, Paul, was to preach the good news of salvation through faith in Jesus to the Gentile world.” (Tabor: page 261; emphasis mine)

He called himself the thirteenth apostle and claimed to be given authority over the Gentile world to prepare them for the ‘second coming’ of Jesus as Messiah.

There are two distinct ‘Christianities’ embedded in the New Testament. One is the now familiar Christianity as followed by billions all over the world today for the past two thousand years. Its main proponent was Apostle Paul. The other is mostly forgotten and got marginalized and suppressed by the former by the turn of 1^st century A.D. This ‘version of the Christian faith best represents the original beliefs and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth and John the Baptizer – founders of the Messianic Movement.’ James, the brother of Jesus, took over the leadership of this movement after the death of Jesus from A.D. 30 until his violent death in A.D. 62.

Paul was beheaded in Rome around A.D. 68 during the reign of Nero.

Apostle Paul can be regarded as the founder of Christianity as we know it today. [not Jesus]

What was Paul's message and why is it problematic?

Was Jesus the founder of Christianity?

Most Christians will respond emphatically that Jesus is the founder of Christianity just like Mohammed is the founder of Islam. Was he?

The following is, in brief, the view of James Tabor: [emphasis mine]

James Tabor

“Jesus, as we know, was the son of Mary, a young woman who became pregnant before her marriage to a man named Joseph.  The gospels tell us that Jesus had four brothers and two sisters, all of whom probably had a different father from him.  He joined a messianic movement begun by his relative John the Baptizer, whom he regarded as his teacher and as a great prophet.  John and Jesus together filled the roles of the Two Messiahs who were expected at the time, John as a priestly descendant of Aaron and Jesus as a royal descendant of David. Together they preached the coming of the Kingdom of God.  Theirs was an apocalyptic movement that expected God to establish his kingdom on earth, as described by the prophets.  The two messiahs lived in a time of turmoil as the historical land of Israel was dominated by the powerful Roman Empire.  Fierce Jewish rebellions against Rome occurred during Jesus's lifetime.

John and Jesus preached adherence to the Torah, or the Jewish Law.  But their mission was changed dramatically when John was arrested and then killed.  After a period of uncertainty, Jesus began preaching anew in Galilee and challenged the Roman authorities and their Jewish collaborators in Jerusalem.  He appointed a Council of Twelve to rule over the twelve tribes of Israel, among whom he included his four brothers.  After he was crucified by the Romans, his brother James – the “Beloved Disciple” – took over leadership of the Jesus Dynasty. 

James, like John and Jesus before him, saw himself as a faithful Jew.  None of them believed that their movement was a new religion.  It was Paul who transformed Jesus and his message through his ministry to the gentiles, breaking with James and the followers of Jesus in Jerusalem, preaching a message based on his own revelations that would become Christianity.  Jesus became a figure whose humanity was obscured; John became merely a forerunner of Jesus; and James and the others were all but forgotten.”

Who is this Paul Tabor is referring to?

               

Reactivating my blog

Ever since Alex Kaniamparambil, my countryman and good friend, now living in the U.K., stopped publishing his e-magazine “Snehasandesham” to which I used to contribute regularly, I have become intellectually lazy. I have stopped putting pen to paper, an activity that gave both exercise and pleasure to my depleting brain cells.

Well, I want to restart writing. What to write about is not an issue, since the choice is limitless; what to choose to write about is more vexing. I have started re-reading some books and often I am left with a different perspective than what I originally held.

During the past Easter Week, I re-read parts of two books that I hold in high esteem as far as depth of research and strength of evidence are concerned. They are:

1.            The Jesus Dynasty [The Hidden History of Jesus, His Royal Family, and the Birth of Christianity] by James D. Tabor and

2.            Jesus Who? [Myth vs. Reality in the Search for the Historical Jesus] by Dr. James Gardner.

Please note that the three of us share the same first name ‘James’, although that’s where the commonality ends!

For quite some time I have been pondering the question: Who is the founder of Christianity as a religion?

What do you think?

FLOGGING AN (ALMOST) DEAD HORSE

The Chief Editor of Sneha Sandesham is a diehard Knaist. This word does not exist; I just made it up. It has a nice ring to (it as it can be bracketed with such sophisticated words as Marxist, Capitalist, and Existentialist. I suppose we can define Knaist as someone who believes in the myths and traditions of the members of the Knanaya community. However, like the typical Kerala Marxist who in public embraces socialism but in private is a hard-line capitalist, one may be a staunch Knaist, but may have children who are only fractionally Knas since they married outside the community. We cannot blame the diehard Knaist for the ‘betrayal’ of their children.

Like all senior citizens, I do tend to wander off as I muse. It could be due to the fast depletion in brain cells as one ages. At times, I go back to Africa; at other times, I like to dabble in philosophical or educational issues. Whenever this happens, our Chief Editor, being a diehard Knaist, gently prods me back to the straight but narrow path of Knaism. Our last telephone conversation went something like this:

Chief Editor (CE): Your article on Patrick Mphephu, the black Venda king, was OK. But remember, Sneha Sandesham is a publication mainly aimed at the Knanaya community. So, Maani, see if you can discuss some Knanaya issues that can help improve the lot of our Knanaya brothers and sisters.

Maani (M): Alright. If you recall, I have mused on a number of issues pertaining to our community: the practice of endogamy, alcoholism among our members, scandalous extravagance in our marriage celebrations and perunnals, weak leadership on the side of the hierarchy, sycophantic attitude of the little lambs, feudalistic practices still prevalent among the clergy, little or no effort to look at the problems of the aged left to their own devices for survival by their non-resident children, family problems among NRIs, defence of the indefensible in the Abhaya case, etc. To keep raking up these issues repeatedly is like “flogging a dead horse”.

CE: Ha! Ha! Ha! (Peals of laughter heard on the other side of the line for a minute). Maani, I really like the expression. But I don’t think the ‘horse’ is dead; I can see some faint movement. Maybe, you should change the expression to “flogging an almost dead horse”.

M: True. In the last issue of Sneha Sandesham there was the article written anonymously by some disgruntled youth about neglect of the Malabar region by the Knanaya leadership. Going by the large number of.......... (dashes), referring I presume to rogue priests, it appeared to me to be more about the immorality among the Knanaya clergy. By ‘immorality’ I don’t mean only sexual as we, the little lambs, have been repeatedly told; it includes all the cardinal sins, starting with avarice and greed.

CE: There certainly is life in the ‘horse.’ Recently there was the shameful news of a Knanaya priest who was about to be arrested and put in jail in US for paedophilia.

M: I too heard about it. When I talked to a relative who was on a short visit home from US, he told me that the man received some inside info and left in a huff. And you know what? He is not an ordinary priest; he is a Monsignor!

CE: Well, well, well. Monsignors are a breed apart. Haven’t you heard of another Monsignor in the US who is keeping ready a bishop’s red skullcap, staff and his very own mitre with the image of Knai Thoma painted on it hoping to be made the bishop of the Knanaya diocese of USA in the near future? The man seems to be stooping to such low levels to achieve his aim that he has become an embarrassment to the Knanaya community there.

M: BTW, have you seen the email in an American Knanaya Google group wherein an appeal has been made to the Knanaya makkal in the medical profession, particularly to those in the field of psychology/psychiatry for help in treating this Monsignor to get rid of his delusions?

CE: I have. The flavour of the season among Knanaya priests in America seems to be buying/building churches.

M: This must be a big money making scam by priests. As you rightly stated in your open letter to Rev. Mutholam, the ‘Sermon on the Mount’ was delivered from a mountain top, not a gilded church pulpit. Do you know that the ‘beatitudes’ were not addressed to the world at large, but to the Qumran community who called themselves ‘poor’. It does not make sense for Jesus to ‘bless the poor in spirit,’ meaning spiritually poor, since they could not have inherited the kingdom of heaven. The inheritors were people ‘rich’ in spirit. The Sermon on the Mount is not a collection of ‘blessings,’ as taught by the Catholic Church; they should rather be viewed as a series of recruiting slogans to sign up to the Essene Sect to which, it appears, Jesus belonged.

CE: So dear Maani, we should all try to make a collective effort to get the ‘horse’ to its feet. At the moment it is full of sores lying on its stinking dung.

M: Few will contest that Knanaya belief in the ‘purity of blood’ is a myth. Can you imagine a situation wherein for more than sixteen centuries no adulteration took place? But then, one can use this myth as a unifying force. There are millions around the world who still believe in the literal creation of the universe in 7 days. My complaint is that we don’t have strong leaders either among the clergy or laity with a vision to take us forward.

CE: True. Most of the recent economic prosperity of our community members is not because of but in spite of the so called Knanaya leadership. It is the result of individual and family sacrifices. Once signs of economic success appear, the powers that be fly down with their begging mitres in the name of building churches, ‘education fund,’ and so on.

M: The current Knanaya Catholic Congress President is planning a whirlwind tour of US (I am reminded of Sancho Panza, Don Quixote’s squire) to mobilise funds for ‘endogamic’ business ventures. Following on the success of the Malabar migration, it is proposed that we encourage our people to migrate to African and South American countries where large tracts of land are available for agriculture. I am thinking of going to South America. It would be great fun to laze around on the Copacabana beaches and watch salsa dancing in the nightclubs and take part in the Brazil carnivals. Want to join?

CE: Why don’t you go first and scout the place for me. In the meantime, let me go back to flogging the dead ‘horse’.

M: The almost dead ‘horse’.

CE: Can I expect something on Knanaya issues soon?

M: Will try and get back at the earliest.

CE: Bye for now.

M: Bye and take care.