I've seen you post this a few times or something similar
It usually happens. To the best of my recollection, nearly everywhere in the Bible that a marriage is discussed and the author wants to focus on it, consummation ends the initial phase of the marriage.
There are more examples to support the idea Mary and Joseph consummated their marriage than there are to support your view.
Authorship is important because it validates whether this is actually a Christian teaching, versus Gnostic teaching, versus heretical teaching. This can also be determined with the content of the early writing from early Christian culture.
Even today, some groups like the Jesus Seminar, can use Christian terms, talk about Christian beliefs, and not be Christians. Or individuals like Bart Erhman who was once a Christian, went to Christian schools, learned about ancient languages, but today writes most specifically against Christianity.
In 1,000 years if someone found the writings of the above two in the ground, or left in libraries, whatever. Identifying who wrote them, their intent, etc. as opposed to true Christianity is important.
What something teaches can determine whether the author is who the writing claims it is. If we know John, Matthew, Peter, any of the many James, Thaddeus, Philip, etc. would not have written a document claim to be written by them then we are to look at it with more scrutiny to determine if it was from a different sect claiming to be Christian while contending with the real Christian church in its infancy.
These
are things that
actually happened in Christian history.
First, 2 Samuel 6:23 is Old Testament. Unless one is comparing the Greek Septuagint's usage of the word then bringing it up does not really prove a point. Someone may have discussed the Septuagint's usage of the word in Greek here. I can't recall, but in this particular article Tim Staples does not.
Second, the article ignores the context of these different statements in comparison with others.
Third, this claim: "The problems with this theory begin with the fact that no available scholarship concurs with it. In fact, the evidence proves the contrary."
This is demonstrably false. Not only due to centuries of Greek scholarship, but current Greek scholarship who translated more recent versions with the specific theme emphasizing the intent was to point out they
did not have sexual relations until Jesus' birth.
I'm also looking at two commentaries by two New Testament scholars. Craig Blomberg and the late Richard Thomas France, the latter being an Anglican. Blomberg is a Professor at Denver Seminary and France was Principal of Wycliffe Hall, Oxford and worked for the London School of Theology in New Testament and Biblical studies. Both affirm in their writings that "until" in Matthew 1:25 most likely means Mary and Joseph continued normal marital relations which include sexual activity. In fact, France is more forceful with it than Blomberg stating:
Nothing in his [Matthew's] text suggests that he subscribed to the later idea of Mary's "perpetual virginity," and indeed "until" most naturally indicates that after Jesus was born normal marital relations began (as indeed the straightfoward sense of Jesus having "brothers and sisters" requires, 13:55-56; cr. Luke 2:7, "her firstborn son").
R.T. France, The Gospel of Matthew, 2007, pg 59.
Blomberg concedes that "until" here does not necessarily prove this point, but strongly suggests it. His exact words:
In keeping with his "righteous" character (v.19), Joseph obeys the Lord's directives (vv. 24-25b). Verse 25a goes beyond what the angel explicitly commands but further refutes any claim that might be made then or later that Joseph himself was Jesus' biological father. The grammatical construction translated "until" strongly suggests (but does not prove) that Mary and Joseph proceeded to have normal sexual relations after Jesus' birth.
Craig Blomberg, The New American Commentary: Matthew, 1992, pg 61.
I also found a list of scholars arguing similar things once I logged into my Alma mater's library and did searches for scholarly journals regarding perpetual virginity, Matthew 1:25, etc. Here is one quick example to show there is scholarship that concurs with this theory.
In defending the virgin birth of Jesus versus claims that it was a myth, the late Dr. David J. MacLeod, former Program Director for Biblical Studies, Bible Exposition and Theology at Emmaus Bible College, wrote:
Matthew’s Gospel does not support the later doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary. The Greek verb stresses continuous inaction on Joseph’s part during Mary’s pregnancy. The “until” clause (ἕως οὗ ἔτεκεν υἱόν,
heōs hou eteken huion) implies that following Jesus’ birth, Joseph and Mary enjoyed normal sexual relations. That Joseph and Mary had a normal marriage after Jesus was born is further indicated by the mention of His brothers and sisters later in the Gospel (13:55–56).
David J. MacLeod, “The Virginal Conception of Our Lord in Matthew 1: 18-25,” Emmaus Journal 8, no. 1 (Summer 1999): pgs, 26-27.
In searching for the above, I also discovered this in regard to the constant claim here that ἀδελφοὶ could be read as kinsmen or cousins. As well as the claims of Papias regarding them being Jesus' cousins. Philip Schaff, a Swiss Protestant Theologian and Church Historian wrote in 1864:
The exegetical or grammatical (though not perhaps the dogmatical) a prior presumption is undoubtedly in favor of the usual meaning of the word, the more so since no parallel case of a wider meaning of ἀδελφός (except the well known and always apparent metaphorical one, which is out of the question in our case) can be quoted from the New Testament. Even the Hebrew אָח is used only twice in a wider sense, and then only extended to nephew (not to cousin), viz. Gen. 13:8; 14:16, of Abraham and Lot, who was his brother’s son (40:27–31), and Gen. 29:12–15, of Laban and Jacob his nephew and sister’s son (comp. vs. 13). Here there can be no mistake. The cases are therefore not strictly parallel.
He goes on:
There is no mention anywhere of cousins or kinsmen of Jesus according to the flesh; and yet the term ἀνεψιός, consobrinus, cousin, is well known to the New Testament vocabulary (compare Col. 4:10, where Mark is called a cousin of Barnabas); so also the more exact term υἱὸς τῆς ἀδελφῆς, sister’s son (comp. Acts 23:26, of Paul’s cousin in Jerusalem); and the more general term συγγενής kinsman, relative, occurs not less than eleven times (Mark 6:4; Luke 1:36–58; 2:44; 14:12; 21:16; John 18:26; Acts 10:24; Rom. 9:3; 16:7, 11, 21).
Now if the brothers of Jesus were merely his cousins (either sons of a sister of Mary, as is generally assumed, or of a brother of Joseph, as Dr. Lange maintains), the question may well be asked: Why, we may rationally ask, did the sacred historians never call them by their right name, ἀνεψιοί or υἱοὶ τῆς ἀδελφῆς τῆς Μαρίας, or τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ τοῦ ᾿Λωσήφ, or at least more generally συγγενεῖς? By doing this they would have at once prevented all future confusion among commentators; while by uniformly using the term ἀδελφαί, without the least intimation of a wider meaning, they certainly suggest to every unbiased reader the impression that real brothers are intended.
Philip Schaff, “The Brethren of Christ,” Bibliotheca Sacra 21, no. 84 (Oct 1864): pgs, 858.
