In a recent work attempting to defend the Marian dogmas and doctrines of Roman Catholicism, Brant Pitre offered the following from Josephus as evidence that αδελφος (“brother”) was used to denote, not just uterine siblings, but even near-relatives (e.g., cousins) in literature contemporary with the New Testament:
On the same day the sons and brothers of king Izates . . . entreated Caesar to grant them a pledge of protection. For the present he kept them all in custody; the king’s sons and relatives he subsequently brought up in chains to Rome. (Josephus, War, 6.356-57)
. . . Josephus proves that a first-century Jew could use the words “brother” (Greek adelphoi) and “relatives” (Greek syngeneis) as synonyms in the same Greek text. (Brant Pitre, Jesus and the Jewish Roots of Mary: Unveiling the Mother of Messiah [New York: Image, 2018], 120, emphasis and ellipsis in original)
The only thing this "proves" is that Pitre misunderstands and misreads (as well as selectively quotes) Josephus. Let us quote in full Jewish Wars 6:356-57 (taken from Whiston’s translation):
(356) On the same day it was that the sons and brethren of Izates the king, together with many others of the eminent men of the populace, got together there, and besought Caesar to give them his right hand for their security. Upon which, though he was very angry at all that were now remaining, yet did he not set aside his old moderation, but received these men. (357) At that time, indeed, he kept them all in custody, but still bound the king's sons and kinsmen, and led them with him to Rome, in order to make them hostages for their country's fidelity to the Romans.
In the portion in bold (not quoted by Pitre), the group did not just include the sons (υιος) and brothers (αδελφος) of Izates, but also “others of the eminent men of the populace” and these are included in the “kinsmen” (συγγενης [being composed of the "brothers" and these "eminent men of the populace") with the “sons” (παις) in Jewish Wars 6:357.
Instead of “proving” the elasticity of αδελφος that Roman Catholic Mariology requires to support the dogma of the perpetual virginity at the time of the New Testament, it only proves the need to examine sources carefully. For Pitre's case to hold up, the category of αδελφος in 6:356 and
For more on the perpetual virginity of Mary and related issues, see chapter 4, “The Perpetual Virginity of Mary” (pp. 83-138) of my book, Behold the Mother of My Lord: Towards a Mormon Mariology (2017).
