HistoricalChristian.Faith

Does 1 Corinthians 9:5 — the “brothers of the Lord” as married travelling apostles, a known class — support reading “brother of the Lord” as literal kinship?

Type: proof-text / historical argument (off-timeline) · Assessment: sound — Paul’s one incidental mention of the brothers of Jesus besides James, 1 Corinthians 9:5, ranks “the brothers of the Lord” alongside “the rest of the apostles” and “Cephas” as examples of missionaries with the recognized right to take a believing wife on their travels. Richard Bauckham reads this as strong evidence that “brother(s) of the Lord” was a settled, recognized designation for a specific, well-known group in the earliest church — married men engaged in travelling missionary work, corroborated from a wholly independent quarter by Julius Africanus’ account of the desposynoi preaching throughout Palestine from Nazareth and Kokhaba. On the interpretation it is adduced for — that “brother of the Lord” names a real, historically-locatable class of literal kin, not a loose figure of speech — the datum holds, and it presses Lightfoot’s classic objection against the Hieronymian cousin-theory. But it is neutral between the Helvidian and Epiphanian readings (both make the brethren literal kin) and does not, by itself, decide Mary’s virginity · argued from Richard Bauckham, with the primary texts in Paul and Eusebius

Related arguments: the reality of the Lord’s brethren — see also Do Jude’s grandsons support a literal-kinship reading? · Does “brother of James” mean literal kinship?

See also the companion arguments on whether Jude’s named grandsons support a literal-kinship reading and on whether Jude 1’s “brother of James” denotes literal kinship (the same anchor, reached from the letter’s self-designation), and on whether the second-century stepbrother tradition is genuine memory or a Marian construct and whether the traditional names of Jesus’ sisters preserve early memory — the same question of what the earliest tradition about the Lord’s household is worth, approached here from Paul’s notice of the brothers as married missionaries.

The claim

Only once in his letters does Paul mention the brothers of Jesus other than James, and the reference is, at first sight, merely incidental. Arguing that he has the right (though he waives it) to be supported by his converts, he lines himself up with the other missionaries who enjoy that right:

Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?

— 1 Corinthians 9:5.¹ Richard Bauckham — himself holding the perpetual virginity on the Epiphanian reading — argues that this “at first sight merely incidental” verse “proves very informative,” and draws from it three things about “the brothers of the Lord.”¹

(a) They are ranked with the apostles. Paul’s point — that he as an apostle has the same rights as other apostles — “could not be advanced by referring to people who were not apostles.” Since he plainly cannot mean that Cephas is not an apostle, the natural reading takes “and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas” not as additions to “the rest of the apostles” but as examples of them. That the brothers fall within the general category of apostles “is clear (and resolves the rather more ambiguous language of Galatians 1:19)” — where Paul says he saw “none… save James the Lord’s brother.” They are never explicitly called apostles in early Christian literature, Bauckham grants, “but this is doubtless because they were generally known by another term — ‘brothers of the Lord’ — which not only described them more closely but also indicated that they ranked with the apostles in status and ministry.” The title thus came to mark both their authority and their family relationship to Jesus at once.²

(b) They are travelling missionaries who took their wives — so, married men. The accepted principle Paul invokes is that a travelling missionary had a right to hospitality, and that this support extended to a wife who accompanied him. Because Paul speaks specifically of travelling with a wife, he “is unlikely to have thought of referring, as particularly weighty instances of his point, to people who were not known as travelling missionaries.” This makes it “unlikely that when he refers to the brothers of the Lord he has James primarily in mind” — James, based at Jerusalem, was not known in the wider church as an itinerant. The brothers come to Paul’s mind “as particularly good examples of his point because of the reputation of the other brothers as travelling missionaries,” and that some of them did exercise the right to take a wife is “likely, from Paul’s specific mention of this right and his instancing them as examples.”³

(c) Their Palestinian mission is independently corroborated. In the first half of the third century Julius Africanus, in his Letter to Aristides, wrote of the desposynoi (“those who belong to the Master” — a term, he explains, used for the relatives of Jesus) that they travelled “from the Jewish villages of Nazareth and Kokhaba… throughout the rest of the land” expounding the family genealogy (ap. Eusebius, Church History i.7.14). Bauckham argues Africanus is “closely following a Palestinian Jewish Christian source”: taken of the earliest period, “its reliability can be supported from its coherence with Paul’s information about the brothers of the Lord… The reference is to the same missionary travels which are presupposed as well-known by Paul in 1 Corinthians 9:5” — only now with geographical precision, the home bases being Nazareth and Kokhaba, and (as at 1 Cor 9:5) James “can scarcely be included, since he was based in Jerusalem.”⁴

The interpretation weighed here is the reading these data are adduced to support: “brother(s) of the Lord” was a fixed, recognized designation for a specific and well-known group of the Lord’s literal kin — married men, some of them itinerant apostles with a traceable Palestinian mission — and not a loosely-figurative or honorific “brother.”

What the argument establishes

1. “Brothers of the Lord” is a settled term for a known group. This is the argument’s real force, and it is strong. Paul can drop the phrase into an argument, without gloss, expecting the Corinthians to know exactly whom he means — a fixed party set beside “the rest of the apostles” and “Cephas” as a recognized class of missionaries. A term used this way, absolutely and without explanation, is a designation, not an ad-hoc description; and its currency is confirmed two ways over — by the standing formula “James the Lord’s brother” (Galatians 1:19) and by the parallel Palestinian tradition of the desposynoi. The brethren were real, nameable, locatable people, well enough known to be invoked as a benchmark of apostolic standing.

2. They were married — literal, reproducing kin. As with the grandsons of Jude, the datum anchors the brethren as flesh-and-blood family rather than a figure of speech: Paul takes it for granted that the Lord’s brothers travelled as married men, with wives who could accompany them. A married, itinerant group with living descendants a generation or two on (Hegesippus’ Zoker and James) is exactly the picture 1 Corinthians 9:5 assumes decades earlier and from an independent quarter. Any reading that dissolves “the brethren” into a purely spiritual or honorific “brotherhood” founders on Paul’s plain assumption that these were men with wives.

3. It presses Lightfoot’s objection against the Hieronymian cousin-theory. If “brother of the Lord” was a habitual, exclusive title for a fixed group — one member singled out as “James the Lord’s brother” — then the Hieronymian reading, which makes that whole group merely cousins, must explain why cousins were “commonly and exclusively styled his ‘brothers’ by indifferent persons,” which J. B. Lightfoot judged “scarcely conceivable” when the precise word for cousin (anepsios) lay to hand. The more firmly “brother of the Lord” is a fixed title, the heavier that objection weighs — a supporting consideration for the cousin-theory arguments, converging with Hegesippus’ care to keep the brethren (James, Jude) verbally distinct from the cousin (Symeon son of Clopas).⁵

What it does not establish

4. It is neutral between the Helvidian and Epiphanian readings. Literal, married kinship is common ground between them. On the Helvidian reading the brothers are Mary’s own later sons; on the Epiphanian reading they are Joseph’s sons by a former wife, Jesus’ elder stepbrothers — and on both they are real members of the household who could marry and travel as missionaries. The verse fixes that they were literal kin and a known group, not whose sons they were, so it lends the perpetual virginity no direct weight and does not touch Mary’s childbearing at all.

5. The “fixed title” step is a probable reading, not a certainty. Steelmanned honestly, Bauckham’s core — that the brothers were a real, known, married, itinerant group — is well-grounded in the plain sense of the verse. His further inference, that “brother of the Lord” had hardened into a quasi-technical designation carrying apostolic authority, is a coherent and probable reconstruction, but it is a reconstruction: the verse is equally consistent with Paul’s simply naming three well-known missionary parties (the rest of the apostles, the brothers, Cephas) without “brother of the Lord” being a formal office-title. And that the brothers were apostles rests on reading their clause as an example of “the rest of the apostles” rather than an addition to them — natural, but not the only possible parsing. The reading’s strong claims do not depend on these softer ones; the group’s reality and marriage stand on the verse’s face.

Assessment

Sound. On the interpretation it is actually offered for — that “brother(s) of the Lord” denotes a real, recognized class of the Lord’s literal kin, married men known well enough to serve Paul as a byword for apostolic standing — the argument is well-grounded and unrefuted, and it rests on the best kind of evidence the whole question affords: an undesigned, incidental notice in an undisputed letter of Paul, written within a generation of the events, converging with an independent Palestinian tradition (the desposynoi of Julius Africanus) and with the family memory Hegesippus preserved. Read for the reality and married kinship of the brethren, it holds firmly; read for the further thesis that “brother of the Lord” was a quasi-technical apostolic title, it is a probable but not certain reconstruction — the softer claim, which the sound core does not need.

Two limits keep the finding modest for this doctrine, and both are limits on what is shown, not defects in the evidence. First, the datum is neutral between the Helvidian and Epiphanian readings — a married, itinerant brother fits a full brother and a stepbrother equally — so it gives the perpetual virginity no direct support and says nothing of Mary’s virginity, which turns on her childbearing, not on her sons’ or stepsons’ marriages. Second, its bite against the Hieronymian cousin-theory is supporting, not decisive: cousins marry and travel too, and a fixed group-title, however awkward for the cousin-reading, does not by itself refute Jerome. The honest verdict, then: a sound datum for the literal kinship of the brethren — the same anchor the grandsons of Jude supply, reached here from Paul rather than Hegesippus — that leaves the choice among the three literal readings, and so the perpetual virginity itself, to be settled on other grounds.

Sources