The perpetual virginity of Mary

[Diamond72]

The perpetual virginity of Mary is a Christian doctrine that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was a virgin "before, during and after" the birth of Christ.[2] In Western Christianity, the Catholic Church adheres to the doctrine, as do some Lutherans, Anglicans, Reformed, and other Protestants.[3][4][5][6][7] The Oriental Orthodox Churches also adhere to this doctrine as part of their ongoing tradition,[8] and Eastern Orthodox churches recognize Mary as Aeiparthenos, meaning "ever-virgin".[9] It is one of the four Marian dogmas of the Catholic Church.[10] Most modern nonconformist Protestants reject the doctrine.[11]

Perpetual virginity of Mary - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Reluctant Theologian]

It is actually interesting to study the history and development of the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity, and then try to understand why and how that happened ...

Actually in the Early Church (+/- first 400 years) I personally don't know any Christian author who didn't believe in that doctrine; so the question becomes: how did that happen and why? Or have I missed something?

 

[tdidymas]

It is actually interesting to study the history and development of the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity, and then try to understand why and how that happened ...

Actually in the Early Church (+/- first 400 years) I personally don't know any Christian author who didn't believe in that doctrine; so the question becomes: how did that happen and why? Or have I missed something?

You likely know this already, but the "Gospel of James" dated 2-3rd C. looks to me like a fictional account of Mary that was mixed in with other Greek and Coptic apocryphal manuscripts. IMO the Coptics are borderline cultic, since they (maybe not all) accept fictional literature like The Book of Enoch into their canon. This "Gospel of James" teaches the perpetual virginity of Mary in its narrative. It is possible IMO that this and/or other invented stories about Mary were simply believed by the ECFs, in spite of the fact that the NT implies a different narrative.

It begs the question why do people accept apocryphal literature as true, rather than the scripture itself? Like the movie "The Ten Commandments," fictional stories are more exciting, and therefore more read, than the true documentaries.

But once I read a quote from Justin Martyr that implied the perpetual virginity of Mary, although I'm not inclined to look it up right now. He lived about 200 years prior to Jerome, who is said to be the first to teach on the subject. It is also said that no ECF prior to Jerome taught the dogma, so the tradition is mostly attributed to Jerome.

 

[BobRyan]

The perpetual virginity of Mary is a Christian doctrine that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was a virgin "before, during and after" the birth of Christ.[2] In Western Christianity, the Catholic Church adheres to the doctrine, as do some Lutherans, Anglicans, Reformed, and other Protestants.[3][4][5][6][7] The Oriental Orthodox Churches also adhere to this doctrine as part of their ongoing tradition,[8] and Eastern Orthodox churches recognize Mary as Aeiparthenos, meaning "ever-virgin".[9] It is one of the four Marian dogmas of the Catholic Church.[10] Most modern nonconformist Protestants reject the doctrine.[11]

Perpetual virginity of Mary - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

All Protestants accept the Bible teaching that Mary was a virgin at the point that she conceived Christ - and that Joseph was told by God about that fact.

Whether one is Catholic or Protestant -- Scripture says Joseph kept Mary as a virgin until Christ's birtn.

Matt 24;24 And Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife, 25 but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.

 

[Reluctant Theologian]

You likely know this already, but the "Gospel of James" dated 2-3rd C. looks to me like a fictional account of Mary that was mixed in with other Greek and Coptic apocryphal manuscripts. IMO the Coptics are borderline cultic, since they (maybe not all) accept fictional literature like The Book of Enoch into their canon. This "Gospel of James" teaches the perpetual virginity of Mary in its narrative. It is possible IMO that this and/or other invented stories about Mary were simply believed by the ECFs, in spite of the fact that the NT implies a different narrative.

It begs the question why do people accept apocryphal literature as true, rather than the scripture itself? Like the movie "The Ten Commandments," fictional stories are more exciting, and therefore more read, than the true documentaries.

But once I read a quote from Justin Martyr that implied the perpetual virginity of Mary, although I'm not inclined to look it up right now. He lived about 200 years prior to Jerome, who is said to be the first to teach on the subject. It is also said that no ECF prior to Jerome taught the dogma, so the tradition is mostly attributed to Jerome.

There's a lot of apocryphal (and some of it possibly fictional) literature, but that does not explain why already very early (at least 2nd century CE) people held the belief of Mary's perpetual virginity.

Whether people had or developed this belief, it would have been consistent at that time with the writings available (New Covenant books), oral tradition on history of the Apostles, early church, etc..

Personally I don't belief in Mary's perpetual virginity but not for the usual reasons that are given in Protestant circles: the argument that the Gospels indicate Mary had other children because the words 'brother/sister' can ONLY mean direct first-line brother/sister. There is sufficient evidence those words could also refer to wider family relatives like half-brothers/sisters/cousins.

Furthermore, the usual Protestant hypothesis that Mary had other children cannot comfortably explain the emergence of the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity so early in church history. If indeed she had other children; if indeed e.g. James the leader of the church of Jerusalem (and author of the correspondingly named book) was a full brother of Jesus (this would have been a widely-known fact) - it would have been unexpected or even nearly impossible for people to start thinking Mary remained a virgin forever and that Joseph never consummated the marriage. That simply would make no sense.

Therefore I think the assumption that Yeshua remained Mary's only son can better explain the emergence of this doctrine. Only in that case people eventually could have started to hypothesize that she remained a virgin forever. The text in Matthew 1:24-25 saying Joseph didn't consummate the marriage until Yeshua's birth emphasizes the abstinence, but does not necessarily guarantee the consummation after His birth. Personally I certainly would expect Joseph to have consummated the marriage because this would be simply an honourable thing to do and also the right of the wife under Mosaic Law. Only the church's later thoughts about the inherent 'evilness' of sex (which is very unjewish) would have created pressure and desire to hypothesize that Mary never had any sex at all.

For me, one of the main indicators Mary had no other children besides Yeshua is His instruction from the cross in wich He commits His mother to John as his mother, and vice-versa John to His mother as her son. This only makes sense it there were no other children who could look after Mary, otherwise Yeshua's statement would be a significant insult to his siblings. Yeshua clearly commits His mother into the care of John; that's impossible if there were other siblings alive.

Be careful in discarding 'fictional literature' like the Book of Enoch, because the Bible book Jude (in Jude 1:14-15) refers to 1 Enoch 1:9. If you deem the Book of Enoch without value, you indirectly also invalidate the letter of Jude as being trustworthy scripture.

 

[tdidymas]

There's a lot of apocryphal (and some of it possibly fictional) literature, but that does not explain why already very early (at least 2nd century CE) people held the belief of Mary's perpetual virginity.

Whether people had or developed this belief, it would have been consistent at that time with the writings available (New Covenant books), oral tradition on history of the Apostles, early church, etc..

Personally I don't belief in Mary's perpetual virginity but not for the usual reasons that are given in Protestant circles: the argument that the Gospels indicate Mary had other children because the words 'brother/sister' can ONLY mean direct first-line brother/sister. There is sufficient evidence those words could also refer to wider family relatives like half-brothers/sisters/cousins.

Furthermore, the usual Protestant hypothesis that Mary had other children cannot comfortably explain the emergence of the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity so early in church history. If indeed she had other children; if indeed e.g. James the leader of the church of Jerusalem (and author of the correspondingly named book) was a full brother of Jesus (this would have been a widely-known fact) - it would have been unexpected or even nearly impossible for people to start thinking Mary remained a virgin forever and that Joseph never consummated the marriage. That simply would make no sense.

Therefore I think the assumption that Yeshua remained Mary's only son can better explain the emergence of this doctrine. Only in that case people eventually could have started to hypothesize that she remained a virgin forever. The text in Matthew 1:24-25 saying Joseph didn't consummate the marriage until Yeshua's birth emphasizes the abstinence, but does not necessarily guarantee the consummation after His birth. Personally I certainly would expect Joseph to have consummated the marriage because this would be simply an honourable thing to do and also the right of the wife under Mosaic Law. Only the church's later thoughts about the inherent 'evilness' of sex (which is very unjewish) would have created pressure and desire to hypothesize that Mary never had any sex at all.

For me, one of the main indicators Mary had no other children besides Yeshua is His instruction from the cross in wich He commits His mother to John as his mother, and vice-versa John to His mother as her son. This only makes sense it there were no other children who could look after Mary, otherwise Yeshua's statement would be a significant insult to his siblings. Yeshua clearly commits His mother into the care of John; that's impossible if there were other siblings alive.

Be careful in discarding 'fictional literature' like the Book of Enoch, because the Bible book Jude (in Jude 1:14-15) refers to 1 Enoch 1:9. If you deem the Book of Enoch without value, you indirectly also invalidate the letter of Jude as being trustworthy scripture.

I disagree with you on most counts. It was not necessary for NT writers to say that Mary had biological children after Jesus, because they all knew it to be true. No other explanation makes sense with all the passages referring to His brothers, even the one in which He says that everyone who obeys God is His brother, sister, and mother (yes, especially this one). Jesus had often spoken contrarywise to what people knew was obvious, since His agenda was to teach spiritual truth. I take Mark 6:3 literally, because it's the way it reads. I don't look for external ideas which don't easily flow with the text.

Furthermore, your conclusion about Jude being untrustworthy because it quotes an untrustworthy text? Hogwash. Paul quotes ancient Greek philosophical works, and no one I know of doubts the truth of what he says. Besides, Enoch is written in post-exilic Hebrew, which shows that it was written 300 BC at the earliest. It is called "pseudoepigrapha" (false writing) because the claim doesn't fit the evidence. Jude says "the seventh from Adam" to identify the one who originally said it, as opposed to the fiction writer who happened to include that quote in his writing. Both Jude and the writer of Enoch had some other source, possibly oral tradition or other writing. Anyway, this is off-topic, so that's all I'll say about it.

 

[Reluctant Theologian]

I disagree with you on most counts. It was not necessary for NT writers to say that Mary had biological children after Jesus, because they all knew it to be true. No other explanation makes sense with all the passages referring to His brothers, even the one in which He says that everyone who obeys God is His brother, sister, and mother (yes, especially this one). Jesus had often spoken contrarywise to what people knew was obvious, since His agenda was to teach spiritual truth. I take Mark 6:3 literally, because it's the way it reads. I don't look for external ideas which don't easily flow with the text.

Furthermore, your conclusion about Jude being untrustworthy because it quotes an untrustworthy text? Hogwash. Paul quotes ancient Greek philosophical works, and no one I know of doubts the truth of what he says. Besides, Enoch is written in post-exilic Hebrew, which shows that it was written 300 BC at the earliest. It is called "pseudoepigrapha" (false writing) because the claim doesn't fit the evidence. Jude says "the seventh from Adam" to identify the one who originally said it, as opposed to the fiction writer who happened to include that quote in his writing. Both Jude and the writer of Enoch had some other source, possibly oral tradition or other writing. Anyway, this is off-topic, so that's all I'll say about it.

I respect your position which became the dominant one after the Reformation. It's helpful however to realise that it wholly rests on the narrow interpretation of the Greek words for brother/sister to be mean only immediate full brother/sister, excluding the possibility of them being half-brothers/sisters or cousins. In Greek literature there is support those words had a wider meaning. So one still can take Mark 6:3 literally but not interpret that to refer to Yeshua's full brothers/sisters.

And as mentioned this interpretation/hypothesis also leaves friction with both Mary's commitment to John's care and a lack of a credible explanation for the very early emergence of the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity.

Personally I'm drawn to any hypothesis that seems best in harmonising all known facts, while fully acknowledging the Gospel accounts, that is why for me I consider the hypothesis that Yeshua remained Mary's only child to be the most likely one - it seems to cause the least problems/friction elsewhere. If there's other evidence that I've overlooked I'll happily update my position of course.

Jude doesn't just 'quote' the Book of Enoch, it quotes a prophecy from it and apparently deems those verses from Enoch worthwhile and authoritive. By logic I am simply observing that if one would consider the Book of Enoch to not contain authoritive/trustworthy material (including prophecies), a problem arises with Jude who seems to to take an opposite view.

 

[Diamond72]

His brother, sister, and mother (yes, especially this one).

Jesus teaches us that our brothers, sisters, father, mothers, sons and daughters are in the church. We are family. If people do not have a family they still have their family in the Lord.

29“Truly I tell you,” Jesus replied, “no one who has left home or wife or brothers or parents or children for the sake of the kingdom of God 30will fail to receive many times more in this age—and in the age to come, eternal life.”

Mark 3 “Look,” He was told, “Your mother and brothers are outside, asking for You.” 33But Jesus replied, “Who are My mother and My brothers?” 34Looking at those seated in a circle around Him, He said, “Here are My mother and My brothers!…

 

[tdidymas]

Jesus teaches us that our brothers, sisters, father, mothers, sons and daughters are in the church. We are family. If people do not have a family they still have their family in the Lord.

29“Truly I tell you,” Jesus replied, “no one who has left home or wife or brothers or parents or children for the sake of the kingdom of God 30will fail to receive many times more in this age—and in the age to come, eternal life.”

Mark 3 “Look,” He was told, “Your mother and brothers are outside, asking for You.” 33But Jesus replied, “Who are My mother and My brothers?” 34Looking at those seated in a circle around Him, He said, “Here are My mother and My brothers!…

Your argument fails, in that Jesus is speaking something that is obviously contrary to what was obvious, that Jesus had familial brothers. Do you deny that "Your mother" was his familial mother? Of course not! And so, the people knew that He had familial brothers He grew up with, and therefore "and brothers" is referring to familial brothers. When Jesus said "who are my mother..." He was not denying the obvious, that she was His familial mother, and in the same way He was not denying that He had familial brothers. Therefore, your interpretation has a huge hole in it. Jesus' response was to direct people to spiritual relationships (i.e. the Kingdom of Heaven), which was always analogized by what is obvious in the physical realm.

 

[Diamond72]

Your argument fails

A lot of people would disagree with you because they do feel like we are brothers and sisters in the Lord. But I understand that you do not feel that way. Does that mean you feel detached from people in some way?

 

[jas3]

It begs the question why do people accept apocryphal literature as true, rather than the scripture itself?

1. That's not the correct way to use "begs the question." Question begging is when you skip over asking a question and assume the conclusion, not when a statement leads to another question.
2. Your reasoning begs the question: how do you know that the perpetual virginity of Mary originates in an apocryphal source? All you've done is pointed out that the Protoevangelium of James says it and then assumed that that means the doctrine came from that work, when the author could have been incorporating existing knowledge into his writing.

But once I read a quote from Justin Martyr that implied the perpetual virginity of Mary, although I'm not inclined to look it up right now. He lived about 200 years prior to Jerome, who is said to be the first to teach on the subject. It is also said that no ECF prior to Jerome taught the dogma, so the tradition is mostly attributed to Jerome.

Actually Hippolytus of Rome (late 2nd cent. - early 3rd cent.) is the first writer whose name we know who called Mary ever-virgin, and there were several others before Jerome. There is a nice compilation of cited quotes here:

Mary: Ever Virgin — Church Fathers

www.churchfathers.org

 

[Diamond72]

how do you know that the perpetual virginity of Mary originates in an apocryphal source?

As far as I know the perpetual virginity of Mary is accepted by the Catholic (Roman) Church.
So this is based on whatever authority you want to give to them.

 

[jas3]

As far as I know the perpetual virginity of Mary is accepted by the Catholic (Roman) Church.
So this is based on whatever authority you want to give to them.

I'm talking about the belief in Mary's perpetual virginity in general, not just within Catholicism. John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, said that the perpetual virginity of Mary is one of the essential parts of the Christian faith in his Letter to a Roman Catholic. It is a belief held widely outside of Catholicism, so the question of its authenticity is independent of Catholicism.

 

[tdidymas]

A lot of people would disagree with you because they do feel like we are brothers and sisters in the Lord. But I understand that you do not feel that way. Does that mean you feel detached from people in some way?

Are you trying to patronize me? (I'm being sarcastic, since your response appears ludicrous.) My interpretation is based on examination of the text, not on feelings or religious sentiments as your interpretation appears. Correct Interpretation of the text has nothing to do with feelings or sentiment or tradition or anyone's opinion. It's a matter of what the original writer actually meant by what he wrote. If you paid close attention to Vatican II Dei Verbum 11-13, you would see I'm doing the same thing stated in it. I just wonder if you're even interested.

 

[Diamond72]

My interpretation

Ok believe what you want. There does not seem to be enough evidence one way or the other to support the Roman Catholic view vs the protestant view.

 

[jas3]

Correct Interpretation of the text has nothing to do with feelings or sentiment or tradition or anyone's opinion. It's a matter of what the original writer actually meant by what he wrote.

This is correct, which is why we need to look at these matters keeping in mind the culture, language, and audience of the original writers. In Greek and Aramaic, it was common to refer to a brother, stepbrother, cousin, or other kin as "brother," ἀδελφόσ.

Notably, the early Greek church fathers, who shared the language and culture of the Greek New Testament, understood the word in these verses to indicate some relationship other than siblings. The first record we have of anyone arguing that "brother" indicates a sibling is from Rome, presumably from someone who was a native speaker of Latin, not Greek.

Do you deny that "Your mother" was his familial mother? Of course not! And so, the people knew that He had familial brothers He grew up with, and therefore "and brothers" is referring to familial brothers.

The problem with your argument is that μήτηρ unambiguously means "mother," while it's well-attested that ἀδελφόσ refers to a variety of relationships and can be as vague as "male relative." You can't just take the English translations which have different denotations than their Greek counterparts and argue that the English denotations are the standard of interpretation.

 

[tdidymas]

This is correct, which is why we need to look at these matters keeping in mind the culture, language, and audience of the original writers. In Greek and Aramaic, it was common to refer to a brother, stepbrother, cousin, or other kin as "brother," ἀδελφόσ.

Notably, the early Greek church fathers, who shared the language and culture of the Greek New Testament, understood the word in these verses to indicate some relationship other than siblings. The first record we have of anyone arguing that "brother" indicates a sibling is from Rome, presumably from someone who was a native speaker of Latin, not Greek.


The problem with your argument is that μήτηρ unambiguously means "mother," while it's well-attested that ἀδελφόσ refers to a variety of relationships and can be as vague as "male relative." You can't just take the English translations which have different denotations than their Greek counterparts and argue that the English denotations are the standard of interpretation.

It appears to me you are straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel, when you try to analyze words without taking the context into consideration. It is not good interpretation to use external definitions and try to force it on the text. Words (and their nuances) are defined by the way they are used.

So let's carefully examine the context of Luke 8:20 and Mat. 12:47 (please read the whole section each, while we focus on these two verses):
1. Both the writer (Luke and Matthew) and the speakers in the story use the term "brothers".
2. The term "brothers" is used in the same context as "mother."
3. People in the crowd state the obvious, they don't speak in figures.
4. It doesn't matter how ancient the culture, no one uses "mother" and "brothers" in the same sentence, where "mother" is familial mother, and "brothers" is not familial brothers. If you disagree, then you have to show proof by way of ancient documents how your idea that "brothers" in such a context are not familial brothers, i.e. in the same sentence as familial "mother" (overwhelming proof, not just one single text). You have the burden of proof to show that your idea fits the culture as you claim.

To claim that "brothers" in this context is not familial brothers is to strain at the text, making it into something that does not naturally flow with obvious meanings in conversation. When interpreting scripture, we have to lay aside all religious sentiment and take the text as written, literally, unless taking it figuratively is obvious by the context. This way of interpreting scripture is the correct way, and is accepted among the vast majority of Biblical scholars.

 

[jas3]

It is not good interpretation to use external definitions and try to force it on the text.

Indeed, we should use the definitions of the actual words, not external ones.

Both the writer (Luke and Matthew) and the speakers in the story use the term "brothers".

The term is ἀδελφοί, specifically.

The term "brothers" is used in the same context as "mother."

Sure.

People in the crowd state the obvious, they don't speak in figures.

Agreed.

It doesn't matter how ancient the culture, no one uses "mother" and "brothers" in the same sentence, where "mother" is familial mother, and "brothers" is not familial brothers.

Let's be specific - "familial" is a vague term. Cousins are family, second cousins are family, stepbrothers are family, and half-brothers are family. All of these are "familial" ἀδελφοί. So yes, if we're going to approximate the terms in English, I would say the crowd is referring to his familial mother and his familial brothers, but obviously those terms mean different things to you than they do to me. Using ἀδελφοί to refer to male relatives is not figurative language, that's just an accepted use of the word.

If you disagree, then you have to show proof by way of ancient documents how your idea that "brothers" in such a context are not familial brothers, i.e. in the same sentence as familial "mother" (overwhelming proof, not just one single text). You have the burden of proof to show that your idea fits the culture as you claim.

Haha, no. This is ridiculously unreasonable and you know it.

 

[tdidymas]

Indeed, we should use the definitions of the actual words, not external ones.

The term is ἀδελφοί, specifically.

Sure.

Agreed.

Let's be specific - "familial" is a vague term. Cousins are family, second cousins are family, stepbrothers are family, and half-brothers are family. All of these are "familial" ἀδελφοί. So yes, if we're going to approximate the terms in English, I would say the crowd is referring to his familial mother and his familial brothers, but obviously those terms mean different things to you than they do to me. Using ἀδελφοί to refer to male relatives is not figurative language, that's just an accepted use of the word.

Haha, no. This is ridiculously unreasonable and you know it.

The people in the crowd knew them socially, did they not? They were stating the obvious, that Jesus' brothers grew up with him in the same house. They used the term "brothers," not "cousins" or "relatives." So then, they were siblings. But it surprises me that you never stated that they might have been children of Joseph from a previous marriage. But this is an argument from complete silence. All we have is what the scripture actually says, and the natural meaning is siblings, that is, from the same mother. To make it otherwise is straining at the text as well as other texts that imply the same.

My request may be unreasonable, but when you claimed that in ancient Greek, brothers refers to (a wide range of) relatives, I take it as a mere opinion. Unless you prove so, it is to be disregarded. Yet I don't think it is unreasonable, if you were really giving an expert opinion. If your opinion was expert, you would have the source to back it up. But since you say it's "ridiculously unreasonable," then I take it you're just making it up.

 

[Diamond72]

All we have is what the scripture actually says

The Gospel of James, also known as the Infancy Gospel of James or the Protoevangelium of James, is an apocryphal Gospel written around 150 C.E. Although it’s not part of the official Christian canon, it holds significance as the earliest surviving document attesting to the veneration of Mary. It emphasizes her perpetual virginity and presents her as the New Eve1. However, it was not included in the New Testament due to various reasons, including its late composition and the Gnostic nature of some of its content2.