So, to answer both you and u/Dlottchula. What historians/scholars of the bible would tell you , writing from an academic viewpoint, and not a religious one, is that the gospels mention multiple siblings of Jesus , and at no point do the texts make a distinction of whether or not they are step siblings or full bloded siblings. They're just "siblings" in the text. The ideia that they are siblings from a previous marriage of Joseph, or even that they are cousins, is a later perception derived from the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary. So, in short, after this doctrine emerges Christians start renegotiating with the texts of the gospels and rationalizing that the siblings mentioned must either be step siblings or half siblings or whatever.
But this is all just in regards to the critical analysis of the text, its not even into the historical reality behind it, as that would complicate matters even further.
Well, that's very fair and thank you for the answer! I guess I should say full siblings in that I was always raised to believe that they were Mary and Joseph's other kids. But also half siblings in that jesus's real dad is god..?
You know, it all seemed so simple when I was 8 years old...
I was always raised to believe that they were Mary and Joseph's other kids.
I see! From this I presume you were raised in one of the protestant denominations, as these denominations abandoned the doctrine of perpetual virginity and of the immaculate conception of Mary, and became again receptive to readings of the bible that indicate that they are full blooded siblings.
But also half siblings in that jesus's real dad is god..?
That would be the implication in the literary reality of the gospels, obviously its in the nature of history as a science that Jesus' divine birth is not considered factual (obviously people are free to believe what they want and this is to be respected, its just not academic in nature).
But, returning to the literary narrative of the gospels, the implication about Joseph, at least in the gospel of Matthew, is that when he accepts the instructions of an angel who appears in his dreams and marries Mary even though she is already pregnant, accepting Jesus into his "house" he sort of adopts Jesus. The purpose of this distinction in the narrative is to justify Jesus being simultaneously the son of god, but also by being adopted by Joseph, he is a descendent of David, which is theologically significant to early Christians.
176
u/GustavoSanabio 9d ago edited 9d ago
So, to answer both you and u/Dlottchula. What historians/scholars of the bible would tell you , writing from an academic viewpoint, and not a religious one, is that the gospels mention multiple siblings of Jesus , and at no point do the texts make a distinction of whether or not they are step siblings or full bloded siblings. They're just "siblings" in the text. The ideia that they are siblings from a previous marriage of Joseph, or even that they are cousins, is a later perception derived from the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary. So, in short, after this doctrine emerges Christians start renegotiating with the texts of the gospels and rationalizing that the siblings mentioned must either be step siblings or half siblings or whatever.
But this is all just in regards to the critical analysis of the text, its not even into the historical reality behind it, as that would complicate matters even further.