Who are Jesus’ brothers in the Bible?

By Daniel Cerqueira Afonso

Rome, November 9, 2026: “Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother named Mary, and his brothers James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas?” (Matthew 13:55, Vulgata) Nonne hic est fabri filius? Nonne mater eius dicitur Maria et fratres eius Iacobus et Ioseph et Simon et Iudas?

The “brothers of Jesus” are four men named in the Gospel, James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas, along with unnamed sisters (Mt 13:55-56).

No text in the New Testament explicitly states that they are sons of Mary. But neither does any text expressly deny this, and exegete John P. Meier acknowledges that at first glance, Mt 13:55 read alongside Mt 1:25 gives the impression that Joseph and Mary had other children after Jesus (MEIER, 2006, p. 308).

Between the 2nd and 4th centuries, three explanations emerged: they were children of Joseph from a previous marriage, they were close relatives of Jesus, or they were children of Mary. The Church rejects the third.

The issue is not one of mere genealogical curiosity, as it touches upon the perpetual virginity of Mary. For more on Mary’s place in the sources, see also Maria almost does not exist in the Bible? and historical sources on Mary, the Bible, and apocrypha.

The problem begins with a word: adelphós and the Hebrew ah

The Greek adelphós means “brother.” The Hebrew ‘aḥ, underlying its biblical usage, has a broader range.

Luis Alonso Schökel’s dictionary gives the senses of fratello, fratellastro, “half-brother,” and membro della famiglia, non definito, “member of the family, undefined,” and reminds us that Laban is called “brother” of Jacob, from whom he was an uncle (Gen 29:15), and Abraham “brother” of Lot, who was his nephew, in Gen 13:8 (ALONSO SCHÖKEL, 2013, p. 26).

This is the classic argument for the thesis of relatives.

Exegetes do however, do not give it decisive value. The coordinated ecumenical assessment by Raymond Brown observes that the normal meaning of adelphós in the New Testament is that of a blood brother, and that the Semitic background alone is not sufficient to warrant a broader translation (BROWN et al., 1986, p. 73).

Greek had a specific word for first cousin, anepsiós, which the Letter to the Colossians uses for Mark,Μᾶρκος ὁ ἀνεψιὸς Βαρναβᾶ“Mark, cousin of Barnabas” (Col 4:10). The linguistic argument shows that the reading “relatives” is possible, not that it is mandatory.

Textual Evidence: Mark 15:40 and the Other Mary

The lists of brothers appear in Matthew and Mark, with James and Joseph always listed first.Ἰάκωβος καὶ Ἰωσὴφ καὶ Σίμων καὶ Ἰούδας(Matthew 13:55)ἀδελφὸς Ἰακώβου καὶ Ἰωσῆτος καὶ Ἰούδα καὶ Σίμωνος(Mark 6:3). By the cross, the same evangelists mention a woman calledΜαρία ἡ Ἰακώβου τοῦ μικροῦ καὶ Ἰωσῆτος μήτηρ“Mary, the mother of James the Lesser and of Joseph” (Mk 15:40), and Matthew calls her…Μαρία ἡ τοῦ Ἰακώβου καὶ Ἰωσὴφ μήτηρ(Mt 27:56).

Later, at the tomb, she is referred to as “the other Mary” (Mt 28:1). John, in turn, places Mary at the cross (John 19:25).ἡ ἀδελφὴ τῆς μητρὸς αὐτοῦ, Μαρία ἡ τοῦ Κλωπᾶ“his mother’s sister, Mary of Clopas” (John 19:25).

The Catechism of the Catholic Church relies on these texts: James and Joseph, “brothers of Jesus” (Mt 13:55), are sons of a Mary, a disciple of Christ, significantly called “the other Mary” (Mt 28:1), and they are Jesus’ close relatives, according to a well-known expression from the Old Testament (CIC 500).

This is a strong argument, but not a proof. Mk 15:40 does not say that this Mary is a different woman from the Mother of Jesus, nor that her James and Joseph are the ones mentioned in Mk 6:3.

Meier, who does not identify this Mary with the Mother of Jesus, considers it “very likely,” “very probably,” that the two sons should not be identified with the brothers of 6:3, and he calls the text “a false lead” for the problem (MEIER, 2006, pp. 308-309).

The authors of the study coordinated by Brown acknowledge that they did not reach agreement on the most likely solution (BROWN et al., 1986, p. 78).

Even Helvidius, in the 4th century, already used these verses to his advantage (JEROM, PL 23, 195-196).
The Three Explanations in Contrast

The first explanation makes the brothers sons of Joseph, a widower from a previous marriage.

The apocryphal Protoevangelium of James, from the 2nd century, puts these words in Joseph’s mouth when Mary is handed over to him:υἱοὺς ἔχω καὶ πρεσβύτης εἰμὶ, αὐτὴ δὲ νεᾶνις“I have children and am old, and she is young” (Protoevangelum 9:2, in Amann, 1910, p. 216).

The text does not say that Joseph was a widower nor does it connect these children to Jesus’ brothers.

However, around 250, Origen, citing the Gospel of Peter or the book of James, noted that some believed Joseph’s brothers were his children from a previous marriage (ORIGENES, In Matthaeum X,17, PG 13, 876-877).

Around 375, St. Epiphanius developed this thesis further, naming the children: Joseph had four sons and two daughters from his first wife, Jacob, Joseph, Simeon, Judah, Salome, and Mary, and then, as a widower in his eighties, took Mary (EPIPHANIUS, Panarion 78.7-8, PG 42, 709-712).

This is the explanation favored by Eastern tradition, and St. John Chrysostom also followed it (Roschini, [undated], p. 400-401, Meier, 2006, p. 303).

The second explanation is that of Saint Jerome, in his treatise Contra Helvidium, written around 383 (KELLY, [undated], p. 104-106, MEIER, 2006, p. 303).

Helvidius, a Roman layman, maintained that Mary had other children after Jesus.

Jerome responds that Scripture uses the term “brothers” in four senses: quatuor modis in Scripturis divinis fratres dici, natura, gente, cognatione, affectu, “in Scripture, brother is said of four kinds: by nature, by race, by kinship, and by affection” (JEROME, Adversus Helvidium 14, PL 23, 197). The brothers of Jesus would be so by kinship.

He identifies the mother of James and Joseph with Mary of Clopas in Jn 19:25:Restat conclusio, ut Maria ista quae Jacobi minoris scribitur mater, fuerit uxor Alphaei, et soror Mariae matris Domini“ It follows, therefore, that this Mary, called the mother of James the Lesser, was the wife of Alpheus and sister of Mary, the Mother of the Lord” (in his commentary on Matthew, Jerome calls her mater tera Domini, the maternal aunt of the Lord, and her children consobrinos Salvatoris, PL 26, 85-86) (JEROME, PL 23, 196).

However, he soon admits that he does not insist on this identification, contentiosum funem non traho, as long as it is clear that the mother of James and Joseph is not the Mother of the Lord (PL 23, 196). Jerome rejected the theory of Joseph’s sons, considering it taken from deliramenta apocryphorum, “apocryphal ravings” (JEROME,

In Matthaeum 12,46, PL 26, 83-84), and affirmed that Joseph also remained virgin (PL 23, 203-204).

An ancient testimony offers some support for this familial context: Hegesippus, in the 2nd century, cited by Eusebius, states that Clopas was Joseph’s brother (EUSEBIUS, Historia ecclesiastica III,11, PG 20, 247-248) and that Simeon, son of Clopas, according to the bishop of Jerusalem, wasἀνεψιὸν […] τοῦ Κυρίου“First of the Lord” (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History IV, 22, 4, PG 20, 379-380).

The same Hegesippus, however, calls James “brother of the Lord,” and Meier sees in this distinction of terms a sign that he regarded him as a true brother (Meier, 2006, pp. 320-321).

The third explanation is that of Helvidius: brothers of blood, sons of Joseph and Mary after the birth of Jesus. Meier notes that it was not invented in the 4th century and that, besides Hegesippus, Tertullian also seems to know a similar tradition (MEIER, 2006, pp. 320-323).

The Church rejects it.

The Lateran Synod, presided over by Pope Martin I in 649, condemned those who do not confess that Mary gave birth to “indissolubili permanente et post partum eiusdem virginitate,” “permanently indissoluble, also after her childbirth, to her virginity” (DH 503), and the Catechism states that the Church always understood these passages as not referring to other sons of the Virgin Mary (CIC 500).

What the Theologians of the 16th Century Answered

In the 16th century, the Dominican Melchior Cano, in his De locis theologicis, treated the subject as a question in which Scripture does not decide alone.

According to the summary given in the Locus Josefology manual, Cano considered that the hypothesis of Joseph’s sons had probable reasons, but that Jerome had found a much more probable reason.

Cano himself relied precisely on Mk 15:40 to say that James was not Joseph’s son (CANO, De locis theologicis XI,5, apud AFONSO, 2025, pp. 151-153). On Joseph’s place in the family of Nazareth, see the son of the carpenter (https://locusmariologicus.org/jesus-o-filho-do-carpinteiro/).

Mark 3:31-35: the most quoted and most misread scene

When his mother and brothers arrived and called for him, he answered, looking at those standing around him: “Behold, my mother and my brothers. Whoever does the will of God is my brother, my sister, and my mother” (Mk 3:34-35).

The scene is sometimes used to suggest that Jesus distanced himself from his family or his mother. But the text does not identify who these brothers were or speak of any familial relationship: its focus is on the new family of the disciples.

Luke, narrating the same event, seems to present Mary and Jesus’ brothers as an example of those who hear the word of God and put it into practice (Lk 8:21, BROWN et al., 1986, p. 36), and in the Acts we see Mary praying with the apostles.σὺν γυναιξὶν καὶ Μαριὰμ τῇ μητρὶ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ καὶ τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς αὐτοῦ“with women, with Mary, the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers” (Acts 1:14). On the family of Jesus in the Gospels, see also Mary, Joseph, and Jesus in the Temple.

State of the question: a still-open academic controversy

Among exegetes, the question remains open. The committee coordinated by Brown, composed of Catholics and Protestants, did not reach agreement on the most likely solution and noted that the preference of each scholar depends in part on the authority they attribute to the later tradition of the Church (BROWN et al., 1986, p. 78).

Meier, who judges only as a historian and declares that he sets aside the later faith and teaching of the Church, admits that the arguments do not provide absolute certainty, but considers it more probable that they were blood brothers (MEIER, 2006, p. 324).

Carlos Ignacio González, who defends the thesis of relatives, observes that “never, not even in a single case, do the Gospels (much less affirm) that these are the sons of Mary,” «never, not in a single case, do the Gospels insinuate, much less affirm, that these are the sons of Mary» (GONZÁLEZ, [1993], p. 138).

The Marienlexikon summarizes the position of the early Church: it was known that the virginity after childbirth could not be documented by the Bible, but the arguments against it were not considered conclusive (MARIENLEXIKON, «Jungfräulichkeit Mariens», p. 474).

The faith of the Church in the perpetual virginity of Mary does not depend on the exegetical solution of this or that passage.

It is based on the living tradition, which has been professed by the Fathers since the early times, and on the Magisterium, which teaches it as a truth of faith.