Researched by the Ignaria Editorial Team · Updated 2026-05-19
The apparent tension between scriptural references to Jesus' "brethren" — including James the Just — and the patristic doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity is one of the oldest exegetical puzzles in Christian theology. Three interpretive traditions emerged early: (1) the Epiphanian view, that James and the other "brethren" were sons of Joseph by a prior marriage; (2) the Hieronymian (Jeromian) view, that they were cousins of Jesus — children of Mary's sister, the "other Mary" of the Gospels; and (3) the minority Helvidian view, condemned by Jerome and others, that Mary and Joseph had normal marital relations after Jesus' birth. Jerome's exegesis of "first-born" (as "womb-opener" per Levitical law, not implying subsequent siblings) and Chrysostom's exegesis of "till" in Matthew 1:25 (as emphasizing the miraculous birth, not implying subsequent relations) became the standard patristic tools for resolving the textual hurdles. Aquinas synthesized the tradition, explicitly identifying the "brethren" as cousins through Mary's sister, and dismissing both Helvidius's biological-sibling reading and any implication that Joseph fathered them. The question remains live in Protestant-Catholic dialogue, with most Protestant exegetes accepting the Helvidian reading while Catholic and Orthodox traditions hold the Jeromian or Epiphanian interpretations.
Biblical Texts on the Brothers of Jesus
The New Testament names four "brothers" of Jesus: James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas (Mark 6:3; Matt 13:55–56). Paul mentions "James the Lord's brother" as a distinct figure he personally met (Gal 1:19). John 7:3 records the brothers urging Jesus to go to Jerusalem, and Matthew 1:25 states that Joseph "knew her not till she had brought forth her first-born Son." The central linguistic question is the Greek term adelphos (ἀδελφός). In classical Greek adelphos typically denotes a full brother, but the Septuagint (LXX) uses the same word for Lot when calling him Abraham's adelphos (Gen 13:8; 14:14) — though Lot was Abraham's nephew (Gen 11:27). This LXX precedent is the patristic foundation for reading "brothers of Jesus" as extended kin. The textual crux in Matthew 1:25 ("knew her not till") is contested: the Helvidian reading treats "till" as implying later relations, while Jerome and Chrysostom argue the Greek heōs hou ("until") marks what is asserted without implying its opposite thereafter — as in Matthew 28:20 ("I am with you always, even unto the end of the age"), which does not imply absence afterward.
Three Patristic Interpretations
Three distinct positions emerged before 400 AD. The Epiphanian view (attested from Origen c. 249 AD, systematized by Epiphanius c. 375 AD, accepted by Chrysostom): the brothers of the Lord were sons of Joseph by a prior marriage. On this reading Joseph was an elderly widower whose first wife had borne him children before he became guardian of Mary. The Protoevangelium of James (c. 150 AD) is the earliest narrative source for this view, depicting Joseph explicitly as a widower chosen by lot to guard the Virgin. This position remains dominant in Eastern Orthodox Christianity. The Hieronymian (Jeromian) view (Jerome, c. 383 AD; later Aquinas and mainstream Western scholasticism): the brothers were cousins — sons of Mary of Clopas, the sister of Jesus's mother, identified as "the other Mary" in Matthew 28:1. Jerome coined this solution explicitly to avoid any implication that Joseph had prior children or that marital relations occurred after the birth. This became the standard Catholic Western resolution. The Helvidian view (Helvidius, c. 380 AD, followed later by most Protestant exegetes): Mary and Joseph had normal marital relations after Jesus's birth, making the brothers younger full siblings. Jerome responded polemically in Against Helvidius (383 AD), arguing that Helvidius misread both "till" and "first-born," and that virginity was more honorable than marriage. The Helvidian view had no significant patristic supporters in the first four centuries but has become the dominant Protestant reading from the 19th century onward.
The Patristic Consensus and Perpetual Virginity Doctrine
By the early 5th century, both the Epiphanian and Jeromian positions were considered orthodox, while the Helvidian view was regarded as a novelty without patristic standing. Jerome's two key exegetical moves became standard: (1) "first-born" is a Levitical term designating the womb-opener (Num 3:12–13) — every firstborn son is called "first-born" whether or not siblings follow, and the law of redemption applied to the firstborn regardless; (2) "till" in Matthew 1:25 asserts the virginal state before the birth, not a terminus implying change. Chrysostom's parallel exegesis reinforces this: "He hath here used the word 'till,' not that thou shouldest suspect that afterwards he did know her, but to inform thee that before the birth the Virgin was wholly untouched by man." Aquinas in the Catena Aurea synthesizes both Fathers, presenting the perpetual virginity as the unanimous Western tradition and identifying the "brethren" as cousins through Mary's sister. This remains the formal doctrine of the Catholic Church (defined at the Second Council of Constantinople, 553 AD) and is maintained without qualification in Eastern Orthodoxy. Both traditions treat the perpetual virginity as belonging to the regula fidei (rule of faith) rather than open speculation.
Protestant Exegesis and Modern Scholarship
The Reformation did not initially break with the perpetual virginity: Luther retained it throughout his life, and Calvin acknowledged it as "an opinion not unworthy of reception." Post-Reformation confessionalism, however, gradually moved toward the Helvidian reading as the "natural language" meaning of adelphos in Greek, without the LXX precedent being considered determinative. By the 19th–20th century, most Protestant scholars (J. B. Lightfoot, Theodor Zahn, Martin Hengel) accept the biological-sibling reading, treating it as the simplest interpretation of the Greek. Catholic and Orthodox scholarship responds that the LXX evidence for adelphos covering cousins and near-kin is strong enough to sustain ambiguity, and that the patristic unanimity against Helvidius carries significant weight. John Meier's A Marginal Jew (1991) and Richard Bauckham's work on the relatives of Jesus engage the question extensively, with Bauckham arguing that the Greek evidence is compatible with the cousin hypothesis. The scholarly verdict remains divided along confessional lines: the historical and linguistic data are genuinely ambiguous, and the resolution depends on how one weighs Semitic kinship conventions, Septuagint usage, and patristic consensus against plain Greek reading. Both the Helvidian (Protestant) and the Epiphanian/Jeromian (Catholic/Orthodox) interpretations are exegetically defensible; neither can be ruled out on purely historical grounds.
What the primary sources show
"Every only begotten son is a first-born son, but not every first-born is an only begotten. By first-born we understand not only one who is succeeded by others, but one who has had no predecessor." Jerome argues "first-born" is a Levitical designation for the womb-opener (cf. Numbers 3:12), not a numerical claim implying subsequent children. Against Helvidius he identifies the "brethren" as cousins through Mary's sister — the standard Western Catholic resolution.
"He hath here used the word 'till,' not that thou shouldest suspect that afterwards he did know her, but to inform thee that before the birth the Virgin was wholly untouched by man." Chrysostom reads "he knew her not till she had brought forth her first-born Son" (Matt 1:25) as emphasizing the miraculous nature of the birth, not implying subsequent marital relations. He also identifies the "brethren" as Joseph's sons by a prior marriage, consistent with the Epiphanian tradition. (NPNF1-10)
"Now that Joseph was a widower, and that his first wife had borne him these brethren of the Lord, the Gospel according to Peter affirms, and the book of James." Origen reports and endorses the tradition that Jesus's brothers were Joseph's sons by a prior marriage — the Epiphanian view — citing both the lost Gospel of Peter and the Protoevangelium of James as his sources.
"Joseph was a widower when he took Mary; he had already begotten children when Mary was entrusted to him as guardian rather than wife." Epiphanius names and systematizes the view later called "Epiphanian" — that the brothers of the Lord were Joseph's biological sons from a prior wife — and treats it as the dominant Eastern patristic tradition.
"And there was a widower named Joseph. And the priest said to Joseph: Thou hast been chosen by lot to take into thy keeping the Virgin of the Lord." The Protoevangelium is the earliest source to depict Joseph as an elderly widower with prior children, providing the narrative background for both Origen's and Epiphanius's interpretation of the brothers of the Lord as Joseph's sons.
"But we understand by the brethren of the Lord, not the sons of Joseph, but cousins of the Saviour, sons of a sister of Mary, an aunt of Our Lord, who is said to be the mother of James the Less, and Joseph, and Jude, whom in another place of the Gospel we find called the brethren of the Lord." Aquinas synthesizes the Jeromian position as the authoritative Western resolution, making the cousin interpretation the standard scholastic teaching.