The controversy swirling around the authenticity of the James Ossuary suggests questions about what is, for many people, an imprecisely understood aspect of Christianity - what kind of a family was Jesus born into? Were there brothers and sisters? If there were, how can their existence be reconciled with the notion of Mary as virgin-for-life? As I discovered in a recent Internet search, these are questions to which there are no answers with which all Christians will agree.

There are lots of references in the Bible to Jesus's brothers - both Mark and Matthew referred to four of them - James, Joseph, Simon and Judas. Joseph is also referred to as Joses, which was a common alternative to Joseph in that time, and Judas is often referred to as Jude. It is assumed, from the order in which these names are given in the New Testament, that James was the eldest brother. Taking that theory a little further, there is no consensus on which of them might have been the youngest, because the gospels do not agree. Simon was listed last in Mark, Judas last in Matthew.

Although sisters are mentioned in the New Testament, their names are not given. In Matthew, there is a reference to "all his sisters", from which it seems reasonable to infer that there was more than one. Although there have been suggestions that there were five of them, later Christian literature suggests there were only two, called Mary and Salome. Salome may have been so named after Mary's (mother of Jesus) sister, Salome. The New Testament references to siblings are accepted as describing a family relationship. However, in the language of the day, a reference to a brother need not necessarily be interpreted as meaning a full brother, but might mean a half-brother, a step-brother or even a cousin. The precise meaning of the references is a hotly-debated topic, because of its implications for the view, held by Roman Catholics, that Mary was a virgin, not simply at the time of Jesus's birth, but throughout her life.

The traditional view of eastern orthodox Christian churches is that the brothers and sisters were the children of Joseph by a previous marriage, and so were step-brothers of Jesus. Joseph seems to have been an older man - he probably died when Jesus was about 12 - and he was therefore likely to have been married before his relationship with Mary. The traditional western Catholic view is that they were cousins, all but Jesus being the children of Joseph's brother Clopas and his wife, also called Mary. This is the most problematic explanation, because the earliest Christian literature refers to them as siblings, and would have used different language had they been cousins. Nonetheless, there is a reference in John to "Mary of Clopas", as being one of the three women (all called Mary. there seemed to have been a shortage of first names in those days) who stood by the cross during Jesus's crucifixion. The name Clopas is rare, and undoubtedly refers to the brother of Joseph, who is mentioned in some fragmentary early Christian writings, although not in the New Testament.

Most modern, non-Catholic interpreters of the Scriptures agree that the references are to real brothers and sisters, born to Mary and Joseph after Jesus, who was their first-born. There are also some Catholics whose belief is the same - one of the leading American Catholic biblical scholars of this generation, John P Meier, has written quite extensively on the subject. Anyone interested might read his three-volume series of books, known as A Marginal Jew - Rethinking the Historical Jesus published by Doubleday starting in 1991 (recommended to me by a well-qualified friend, but as yet unread).

Which of these three explanations for the existence of siblings might be correct is something disputed hotly by many people. Even though the proponents of one theory over another would describe themselves as deeply religious people, one senses, in some of the opinions available, a certain barely suppressed hostility for dissent. You get the feeling that the Spanish Inquisition could break out again, at any moment. The argument also seems to attract people with decidedly odd ideas. One web site I visited professed to explain the secret role of geometry in the mystery of Jesus's siblings. but didn't in any way that I could grasp.

About the sisters, Mary and Salome, after the death of Jesus, I could find almost nothing that seemed authoritative. Given the place of women in the society of those days, that is perhaps not surprising. Jesus's brothers are referred to as having became leaders of the early Christian church. It may be that Judas, for example, wrote the Book of Jude. Of none of them, though, is the 'leader of the early church' label as apt as it is of James. He is said to have been among the many people to whom Jesus appeared after the resurrection. in a dream that occurred during a fast he undertook after his brother's death.

James rose to a position of unique preeminence in the Jerusalem Church. He was known as the "bishop" of Jerusalem. The term is anachronistic, perhaps, but it seems to fairly accurately describe James's role. In the end, he was stoned to death at the hands of the high priest Ananus II (son of Annas and brother-in-law of Caiaphas), probably under a law that prescribed this penalty for someone who entices people to change their religion without official dispensation.

While James was at work in Jerusalem, at the centre of the Christian movement, Jesus's other brothers appear to have spent their time as travelling missionaries. Following James's martyrdom, Simon succeeded him as "bishop of Jerusalem." As the leader of the Jerusalem Church, Simon was doubtless the most important figure in Jewish Christianity for at least 40 years, until he, too, was martyred - crucified by the Romans for political subversion because he was of a Davidic family and supported the alleged Davidic king, Jesus. The early Christian writer, Hegesippus, known as the father of the church's history, wrote an account of the death that demonstrated the great reverence with which Simon was remembered in the years immediately following his death. Simon, we are told, "bore witness through tortures of many days' duration, so that all, including the governor, marvelled exceedingly how an old man of 120 years could thus endure." One hundred and twenty years is the Biblical limit on human life, which no one after Moses may exceed, but which someone as righteous as Moses might equal.

Hegesippus also traces the work of Jesus's family into a third generation. The historian relates that, in the late first century, two grandsons of Jesus's brother Jude, called Zoker (definitely not Zonker, so put that out of your mind) and James, came under the suspicion of the Roman authorities because they were descendants of David. According to Hegesippus, the brothers were brought before the emperor Domitian for trial. Having been convinced that they were harmless, merely peasants, Domitian released them and ordered the persecution of Christians to cease.

While the account of this trial is historically improbable and has a strong apologetic thrust, probably in an attempt to show that Jewish Christianity was not a politically dangerous movement, it is at least a legend about real historical persons. With this legend, however, the family of Jesus fades into obscurity. Well, maybe obscurity isn't quite the way to put it. I did come across an account of a certain Hong Xiuquan, aged 23, who, in mid-19th Century China, came to believe that he was the son of God and the younger brother of Jesus Christ. He collected a following, among them men with a gift for military operations, and he and his men began to capture important cities in the central regions of the country. He wanted to construct an earthly utopia, "so that all can live together in perpetual joy, until at last they are raised to heaven to greet their father".

It took almost 15 years for this movement to be suppressed and its leaders raised up for the aforesaid introduction. Tens of millions were engaged on both sides of the struggle; casualties were also said to have been in the tens of millions, and the collateral destruction, by all accounts, was enormous. As we know, there have been lots of other Hongs in history. Which raises an interesting point - is this kind of lunacy about Christianity? Is it about religion? Or is it just about us?