Do the shared names across two families make a kinship reading of the brethren incredible?

Type: defensive rebuttal (off-timeline) · Assessment: sound — the objection is that the kinship readings need two related households (the Lord’s brethren and the family of “Mary of Clopas,” or Joseph’s first family) both to bear the names James, Joses, and Simon, and that this coincidence is too much to credit. It fails: first-century Palestinian Jews drew on a strikingly small pool of names, and these three were among the very commonest, so their recurrence across kin is exactly what the onomastic data predict — J. B. Lightfoot showed it from the New Testament and Josephus, and modern name-frequency studies (Tal Ilan, Richard Bauckham) confirm Simon and Joseph as the two most popular male Jewish names of the era. The rebuttal is a defusing move only: it removes a naming objection to the kinship readings without by itself establishing any one of them — and the particular two-families-of-cousins configuration it partly shields (the Hieronymian) still fails on other grounds · argued by J. B. Lightfoot, with modern onomastic corroboration from Tal Ilan and Richard Bauckham

The objection

The kinship readings of “the brethren of the Lord” — both the Hieronymian (the brethren are maternal cousins, sons of “Mary of Clopas”) and the Epiphanian (they are Joseph’s sons by a former wife) — posit a second household standing alongside the family of Joseph and Mary. And the Gospels give both households overlapping names: the Lord’s brethren are “James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas” (Matthew 13:55; Mark 6:3), while the second Mary at the cross is “the mother of James the little and of Joses” (Mark 15:40) and the family of Clopas yields a Symeon (Simon). A stock reply to the kinship theories fastens on this: that two related families should each contain a James, a Joses, and a Simon is (it is said) an improbable coincidence, better explained by supposing there was only one such family — Mary’s own — whose sons were the brethren, which is the Helvidian reading and denies the perpetual virginity.¹

The interpretation weighed

The interpretation adjudicated here is the rebuttal, not the objection: the recurrence of James, Joses, and Simon across two kindred households is no obstacle to a kinship reading of the brethren, because those names were so common that their repetition is unremarkable. The question is only whether the naming objection has force — not whether any particular kinship theory is otherwise true.

The evidence — a very small name-pool

J. B. Lightfoot answered the objection in four moves. First, the observation on which everything turns: “the Jewish names in ordinary use at this time were very few, and… these three, James, Joses, and Symeon, were among the most common, being consecrated in the affections of the Jews from patriarchal times.” Second, the statistics as he could then muster them: “In the list of the Twelve the name of James appears twice, Symeon twice. In the New Testament no less than twelve persons bear the name of Symeon or Simon, and nearly as many that of Joseph or Joses. In the index to Josephus may be counted nineteen Josephs, and twenty-five Simons.” Where a handful of names are shared out among a whole people, two related families holding the same three is not a coincidence demanding explanation — it is the statistical norm.¹

Third, Lightfoot pressed the point that kinship, far from aggravating the difficulty, relieves it: “is not the difficulty, if difficulty there be, diminished rather than increased on the supposition of the cousinhood of these two families? The name of a common ancestor or a common relative naturally repeats itself in households connected with each other.” Related families share names precisely because they are related — a child is named for a grandfather or uncle — so the overlap the objection treats as a burden on the kinship reading is, on that reading, expected. Fourth, he noted that these very names sit in the Lord’s own line: “the names in question actually occur in the genealogies of our Lord. Joseph’s father is Jacob or James in St. Matthew (1:15,16); and in St. Luke’s table, exclusively of our Lord’s reputed father, the name Joseph or Joses occurs twice at least in a list of thirty-four direct ancestors.”¹

Modern onomastics confirms it

Lightfoot argued from the New Testament and the index to Josephus; the point is now backed by the full onomastic record. Tal Ilan’s Lexicon of Jewish Names in Late Antiquity gathers every recorded name of Palestinian Jews from 330 B.C. to A.D. 200 — some 2,900 occurrences of about 520 names — and on Richard Bauckham’s tabulation of the male names the concentration is extreme. The nine commonest men’s names are, in order, Simon/Simeon, Joseph/Joses, Lazarus/Eleazar, Judas/Judah, John, Jesus, Ananias, Jonathan, and Matthew — and the top of that list reads like the roll of the brethren: Simon is the single most common male name (243 occurrences), Joseph/Joses the second (218), and Judas the fourth (164), with Jacob (James) itself a well-attested name lower down. The two commonest names alone, Simon and Joseph, were borne by 15.6% of all men on record — better than one man in seven. Bauckham traces the crowding to patriotism: six of the nine most popular male names, and the three most popular female names, were names of the Hasmonean dynasty that had won Jewish independence, so families reached for them again and again.²

Against such a background the objection evaporates. If roughly one man in seven is a Simon or a Joseph, and James and Judas are close behind, then any two Jewish households of the period — related or not — are quite likely to share two or three of these names by chance alone; between related households, where naming for a shared ancestor is customary, the overlap is likelier still. The recurrence of James, Joses, and Simon is exactly what a random draw from this name-pool would produce, so it supplies no argument against a second family and no argument for collapsing the brethren into Mary’s own sons.

Assessment

Sound. As a rebuttal the argument holds on its own terms and is confirmed from a quarter Lightfoot did not have: the name-pool of first-century Palestinian Jewry was tiny and top-heavy, James, Joses, and Simon sat at or near its summit, and the repetition of those names across two kindred families is unremarkable — predicted, if anything, by the onomastic data and by ordinary naming custom. The naming objection to the kinship readings therefore carries no weight.

Two limits keep the finding honest. First, the rebuttal is purely defensive: it clears away an objection, but it establishes nothing positive. That the shared names are no obstacle to a kinship reading does not show any kinship reading to be true — the choice among the Helvidian, Epiphanian, and Hieronymian views must still be settled on the other evidence. Second, and for the same reason, the assessment here must be kept apart from the fate of the theory the argument partly shields. The configuration the objection targets most directly is the two-families-of-cousins picture of the Hieronymian reading — which this wiki rates weak on other grounds (the strained identifications, the John 19:25 punctuation, the “James the little” equation, its late appearance). The naming rebuttal can be sound as a rebuttal even while the cousin theory it helps defend fails elsewhere: removing one objection is not the same as vindicating the reading, and a reading can survive the naming challenge yet founder on everything else. What the argument shows, and all it shows, is that no one should reject a kinship account of the brethren on the ground that two families could not both have owned such ordinary names.

Sources