You are confirming the point. The original language was translated into Greek. Secondly, Jesus did many things that were scandalous to the Pharisees. But then he was God. Secondly, He followed the Mosaic Law and Tradition in vast prepondence of his public ministry and personal example, even right up to His sacrifice on the Cross as the Pascal Lamb. He told the people to do what the Pharisees say because they occupied the chair of Moses, but not to follow their example. Your argument does nothing to nullify the fact that he gave his mother into the care of John contrary to Jewish tradition. I’ll join you at your site when I get a moment rather than continue this here.

As for what was acceptable in 1st century Jewish culture, Jesus did many things that were considered scandalous – associating with prostitutes, eating with tax collectors, etc. – so I would look for another explanation as to why he entrusted John with the care of his mother.

I would agree that the early Church Fathers definitely had an agenda but for the reason of preserving the Faith as it was handed on by the Apostles. Heresy has been around since the birth of the Church at Pentecost. At the end of the 4th Century what would become the New Testament is pretty much locked in but it was a long process. There was much dispute on certain other books but even the great St Ambrose, author of the Vulgate Bible, did not support Revelation as part of the Canon submitted to the decision by the Bishops to include it. The Gospels were fixed as early as the 2nd century (Irenaeus, “Against Heresies”A.D. 182-188)
If you want the all the facts then you should read the writings of Sts Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus, Clement of Rome, among others. These people knew the Apostles themselves or were taught by those who were taught by the Apostles. You will find nothing but consistency there about the Divinity and Nature of Jesus. The writings you think should have been considered was treated as the heresy it was.
Another point: in Aramaic and Hebrew there are no word describing a brother as a blood sibling, the term brother denoted a kinsman. Note that in Genesis, Lot is called Abraham’s brother in the text but was actually his nephew. Also, when Jesus was on the cross and he gives His mother into the care of John, in Jewish culture of the time this would NEVER would have been acceptable had he male sibling. James and John were Zebedee’s sons.
For any more on this subject, I’ll join the good Chaplain Major over at his place. To the relief of many here I am sure.
BTW, I’ll still look you up in Bath to buy you in a beer if you can dare be seen with a Papist.

We walk by faith, not by sight.
— 2 Corinthians v. 7.
- SJS