The only pre-Nicene Father of the (Latin-speaking) Church
to take up the issue, Tertullian (ca. A.D. 160-220), considered the brothers of
Jesus true brothers. Interestingly, he argues especially from the passage in
Mark 3:31-35 (paralleled in Luke 8:19-21), where the mother and brothers are
yoked together in an uncomplimentary light. This interpretation of Jesus'
brothers as real brothers is all the more remarkable because Tertullian tended
toward rigorist, ascetic views and had a high esteem for virginity. However,
his fierce opposition to Marcion and the Marcionites, with their docetic view
of Christ's humanity, caused Tertullian to assert emphatically that Jesus'
mother and brothers were truly (vere) his mother and brothers. For
Tertullian, this was an irrefutable way to prove the full humanity of Christ. (John
P. Meier, “The Brothers and Sisters of Jesus in Ecumenical Perspective,” The
Catholic Biblical Quarterly 54, no. 1 [January 1992]: 22)
The major texts giving Tertullian's views are Adversus
Marcionem 4.19 (see Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem [ed. and tr. Ernest Evans;
Oxford: Clarendon, 1972] 360-63); De carne Christi 7 (see Tertullien. Le chair du Christ. Tome I [SC 216; ed. Jean-Pierre Mahé;
Paris: Cerf, 1975] 240); De monogamia 8.1-2 and De virginibus velandis 6.6 (see
Tertulliani Opera. Pars Quarta [CSEL 76; ed. V. Bulhart and P.
Borleffs; Vienna: Hoelder-Pichler-Tempsky, 1967] 58, 88).
It is sad to see so fine a scholar as Blinzler (Die
Brüder, 139-41) strain to water down or make ambiguous what Tertullian clearly
says, especially when all these texts are taken together. Faced with this
embarrassing patristic evidence, Blinzler (1) discusses individual phrases in individual
texts atomistically instead of viewing all the relevant texts together to grasp
Tertullian's overall position; (2) stresses that Tertullian was developing his
view while engaged in polemic against heretics, as though this were not true of
most of the creative theology of the Church Fathers.
At times, Blinzler ignores key phrases that run against
his policy of "damage control." For example, in Adversus Marcionem
4.19, while discussing the scene in Mark 3:31-35, Tertullian notes how Jesus
transfers the "names" of "blood relatives" [i.e.,
"mother" and "brothers"] to others, namely, to those inside
the house, whom Jesus judges to be closer to himself because of their faith
(transtulit sanguinis nomina in alios, quos magis proximos prae fide iudicaret
... ). Tertullian then sums up his whole argument with another use of sanguis
for "blood relation":
"it is not surprising that he [Jesus] preferred
faith [in those sitting around him in the house] to blood-relationship [in his
mother and brothers] (nihil magnum si fidem sanguine praeposuit)."
Blinzler also ignores the obvious sense of Tertullian's rhetorical question
about Jesus' brothers: "Tell me, does every one who is born have brothers
who are born in addition to him as well?" Blinzler likewise ignores the
logical thrust of Tertullian's comparison in De monogamia 8.1-2. There are two
kinds of Christian sanctity, says Tertullian: John the Baptist represents total
continence, while his father Zechariah represents modest monogamy (a monogamy
which ob- viously includes intercourse, witness his son John). Insofar as Mary
bore Christ when she was a virgin and then married once, she embodies both
kinds of sanctity. The implication here is that, as virgin mother of Christ,
Mary embodied total chastity; and as spouse of Joseph, she later embodied
modest monogamy. The parallel with Zechariah naturally suggests normal
intercourse and childbearing.
McHugh's attempt at damage control (The Mother of Jesus,
448-50) is even weaker than Blinzler's. All McHugh can do is run quickly past
the strongest evidence, that of the Adversus Marcionem, and keep insisting that
Tertullian never calls the brothers of Jesus "the sons of Mary."
McHugh fails to realize that the viewpoint of the NT and of Tertullian, unlike
his own, is strongly christological, not mariological. Hence all the
relationships are defined from the vantage point of Jesus, not Mary. After
insisting that Jesus' mother and brothers were truly his mother and brothers,
and after insisting on their "blood" relationship, Tertullian would
have probably replied in his most biting fashion to anyone asking him whether
Jesus' brothers were sons of Mary. (Ibid., 22-23 n. 44)
To Support this Blog:
Email for Amazon Gift
card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com
Email for Logos.com Gift
Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com
