And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?

And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then has this man all these things?

and his sisters, are they not all with us? whence, then, to this one all these?'

And his sisters, are they not all with us? From where then has this man all these things?

And his sisters - are they not all living here among us? Where then did he get all this?"

And his sisters, are they not all with us? Therefore, from where has this one obtained all these things?"

And his sisters, too – are not they all living among us? Where, then did he get all this?"

And his sisters,.... Whose names, according to Epiphanius (b), were Mary and Salome; whom he supposes were the daughters of Joseph, by a former wife; but rather of Alphaeus or Cleophas,
Are they not all with us? Lived in the same town with them, were well known by them, and familiar with them,
Whence then hath this man all these things? His wisdom and his mighty works; for since he had not them from any of their schools, and nurseries of learning, from their learned doctors and wise men; and could not have received them from his parents, and near relations, they could not devise from whence he should have them,
(b) Contr. Haeres. Tom. 2. 1. 3. Haeres. 78. &. lib. Ancorat.

And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things? An exceedingly difficult question here arises--What were these "brethren" and "sisters" to Jesus? Were they, First, His full brothers and sisters? or, Secondly, Were they His step-brothers and step-sisters, children of Joseph by a former marriage? or, Thirdly, Were they cousins, according to a common way of speaking among the Jews respecting persons of collateral descent? On this subject an immense deal has been written, nor are opinions yet by any means agreed. For the second opinion there is no ground but a vague tradition, arising probably from the wish for some such explanation. The first opinion undoubtedly suits the text best in all the places where the parties are certainly referred to (Matthew 12:46; and its parallels, Mark 3:31; Luke 8:19; our present passage, and its parallels, Mark 6:3; John 2:12; John 7:3, John 7:5, John 7:10; Acts 1:14). But, in addition to other objections, many of the best interpreters, thinking it in the last degree improbable that our Lord, when hanging on the cross, would have committed His mother to John if He had had full brothers of His own then alive, prefer the third opinion; although, on the other hand, it is not to be doubted that our Lord might have good reasons for entrusting the guardianship of His doubly widowed mother to the beloved disciple in preference even to full brothers of His own. Thus dubiously we prefer to leave this vexed question, encompassed as it is with difficulties. As to the names here mentioned, the first of them, "JAMES," is afterwards called "the Lord's brother" (see on Galatians 1:19), but is perhaps not to be confounded with "James the son of AlphÃ&brvbr;us," one of the Twelve, though many think their identity beyond dispute. This question also is one of considerable difficulty, and not without importance; since the James who occupies so prominent a place in the Church of Jerusalem, in the latter part of the Acts, was apparently the apostle, but is by many regarded as "the Lord's brother," while others think their identity best suits all the statements. The second of those here named, "JOSES" (or Joseph), must not be confounded with "Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus" (Acts 1:23); and the third here named, "SIMON," is not to be confounded with Simon the Kananite or Zealot (see on Matthew 10:4). These three are nowhere else mentioned in the New Testament. The fourth and last-named, "JUDAS," can hardly be identical with the apostle of that name--though the brothers of both were of the name of "James"--nor (unless the two be identical, was this Judas) with the author of the catholic Epistle so called.