Mary and Joseph

[DamianWarS]

Jean Chauvin (to use the real name of John Calvin) believed and taught Mary's perpetual virginity.

Monsieur Chauvin rejected the perpetual virginity of Mary, the veneration of her and the term Theotokos saying that such a title would only encourage superstitions of the ignorant.

 

[All4Christ]

western culture doesn't prepare a 14yr old for marriage and they are very much children at this age. we can't just superimpose western cultural values over middle eastern culture 2000 years ago... it just doesn't work that way.

But as to the OP, I think the 40yr Joseph is just a way to reject that Mary had children and keep her as a virgin. There is an interesting article that talks about the gospel of James and although it says right out the church has rejected it, it strangely still seeks to pull out elements to ensure Mary remains a virgin on the basis that it is not mentioned anywhere so these elements must be true in this account. Unique elements unmentioned anyone else in a rejected text is a large flag. To me, it shows an irresponsible commitment to these Mariology values to such a degree the church is willing to pull out rejected texts of the church to affirm this position.

The article is from the perspective of Orthodox tradition and Orthodox tend to not care what affirms or not affirms their position, whatever is Orthodox is most important and anything that affirms these values then must be right and anything that reject it is wrong. I don't know how much credit this gives them but I don't see Orthodox tradition looking for a text to support their position but rather that this text happens to agree with it so they are pointing it out and affirming it agrees with that which is Orthodox.

I’d say that the text happens to agree with Church teachings on some issues, but is not an authoritative text. You are right that we aren’t looking to the protoevangelium for a text to support the position.

Fr Thomas Hopko has some interesting transcribed podcasts about it. Some of the podcasts explained some things that were confusing to me. For example there are some historical elements in the protoevangelium that did not seem possible to me in light of other history. He explained that it isn’t all exact history, but the texts we reference from it also express spiritual truth. What we hold to be true isn’t dependent on the Protoevangelium.

 

[All4Christ]

Monsieur Chauvin rejected the perpetual virginity of Mary, the veneration of her and the term Theotokos saying that such a title would only encourage superstitions of the ignorant.

What he does say is that the “until” argument is not a solid argument against perpetual virginity.

25. And knew her not This passage afforded the pretext for great disturbances, which were introduced into the Church, at a former period, by Helvidius. The inference he drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband. Jerome, on the other hand, earnestly and copiously defended Mary’s perpetual virginity. Let us rest satisfied with this, that no just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words of the Evangelist, as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called first-born; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin.115It is said that Joseph knew her not till she had brought forth her first-born son: but this is limited to that very time. What took place afterwards, the historian does not inform us. Such is well known to have been the practice of the inspired writers. Certainly, no man will ever raise a question on this subject, except from curiosity; and no man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation.

Commentary on Matthew, Mark, Luke - Volume 1 - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

 

[DamianWarS]

The bible does mention brothers and sisters of Jesus, but in what context? A half brother or half sister would still be referred to as a brother or sister.

The Bible says Jesus did have half brothers. James, is a half brother to Jesus and wrote The book of James.

There are references John 7:5 and Matthew 13:55

Yes - half-brothers and half-sisters: the biological children of Mary and Joseph.

in order to have a half brother/sister one biological parent needs to be the same. Joseph is eliminated as he cannot be the biological Father of Jesus. This leaves Mary as the common link between Jesus and his half-siblings of Mary and Joseph.

 

[Ttalkkugjil]

in order to have a half brother/sister one biological parent needs to be the same. Joseph is eliminated as he cannot be the biological Father of Jesus. This leaves Mary as the common link between Jesus and his half-siblings of Mary and Joseph.

Okay. Did I say otherwise?

 

[DamianWarS]

What he does say is that the “until” argument is not a solid argument against perpetual virginity.

25. And knew her not This passage afforded the pretext for great disturbances, which were introduced into the Church, at a former period, by Helvidius. The inference he drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband. Jerome, on the other hand, earnestly and copiously defended Mary’s perpetual virginity. Let us rest satisfied with this, that no just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words of the Evangelist, as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called first-born; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin.115It is said that Joseph knew her not till she had brought forth her first-born son: but this is limited to that very time. What took place afterwards, the historian does not inform us. Such is well known to have been the practice of the inspired writers. Certainly, no man will ever raise a question on this subject, except from curiosity; and no man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation.

Commentary on Matthew, Mark, Luke - Volume 1 - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

it seems Calvin avoided a direct answer and some interpret his words as for and some against. Calvin points seem to be the gospels don't inform us on this matter.

 

[All4Christ]

it seems Calvin avoided a direct answer and some interpret his words as for and some against.

Ok. From what I understand, he says that this scripture verse oft used by opponents of the perpetual virginity doesn’t give enough evidence to determine if she did or did not have sexual relations with Joseph at a later time. Essentially he says that the verse in question is in context of that time, not what happened afterwards.

 

[DamianWarS]

Ok. From what I understand, he says that this scripture verse oft used by opponents of the perpetual virginity doesn’t give enough evidence to determine if she did or did not have sexual relations with Joseph at a later time. Essentially he says that the verse in question is in context of that time, not what happened afterwards.

Calvin is also quoted saying

"And in fact, no Catholic interpreter has ever tried to make that positive case; the discussions of PV are all reduced to defensive plays, trying to show that the Scripture doesn’t necessarily require disbelief in PV. But regardless of the rules of hermeneutics, Church authority has declared that the text of Scripture means PV, so PV it is. In that sense, it appears to me that the RCC authority creates truth. Regardless of hermeneutical physics, what the Church says is what is true. Regardless of Matthew and Luke’s intent, as observed by the evidence of their writing, this is what the text means."
​

the irony is Calvin, himself makes defensive plays about the doctrine. He admits it cannot be defended hermeneutically but since the Church says it is so then it is so. He might be playing both sides here and I can see both camps agreeing to this without him actually declaring a position.

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

That's all well and good, but Jewish law never recognized a marriage that was never consummated. If she remained a virgin, then she was not really married.

This notion of some special adoptive marriage, which the Orthodox claim is unsupported by real history.

 

[All4Christ]

Calvin is also quoted saying

"And in fact, no Catholic interpreter has ever tried to make that positive case; the discussions of PV are all reduced to defensive plays, trying to show that the Scripture doesn’t necessarily require disbelief in PV. But regardless of the rules of hermeneutics, Church authority has declared that the text of Scripture means PV, so PV it is. In that sense, it appears to me that the RCC authority creates truth. Regardless of hermeneutical physics, what the Church says is what is true. Regardless of Matthew and Luke’s intent, as observed by the evidence of their writing, this is what the text means."
​

the irony is Calvin, himself makes defensive plays about the doctrine. He admits it cannot be defended hermeneutically but since the Church says it is so then it is so. He might be playing both sides here and I can see both camps agreeing to this without him actually declaring a position.

I can agree that he essentially saying the PV cannot be proven definitively either way from scripture alone. I don’t think he considered the PV to be crucial to the gospel. His main contention in the second quote was the way the Church handled interpretation of Scripture.

 

[☦Marius☦]

The main support for the idea that Mary only had Christ was that Christ entrusts her to the apostle John while he is on the cross instead of James. At that time that would have been unnecessarily strange and even potentially offensive to any of Christ's brothers (James was an apostle as well).

You also have to consider the purity aspect. Did Joseph really dare to put himself in an area God had made clean? We see the Jewish precautions on seminal discharge and uncleanliness.




"Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . I am inclined to agree with those who declare that 'brothers' really mean 'cousins' here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers.

{Pelikan, ibid., v.22:214-15 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539)}

A new lie about me is being circulated. I am supposed to have preached and written that Mary, the mother of God, was not a virgin either before or after the birth of Christ . . .{Pelikan, ibid.,v.45:199 / That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew (1523)}Scripture does not say or indicate that she later lost her virginity . . .
When Matthew [1:25] says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her . . . This babble . . . is without justification . . . he has neither noticed nor paid any attention to either Scripture or the common idiom."

-Martin Luther

 

[☦Marius☦]

The tradition of joseph being a widower is fairy tales.. But then so is a lot of tradition.
It was made up so they could use it to say mary had no more children and remained a virgin
.its just hogwash.

You can argue against an opinion without being inflammatory you know?

 

[FireDragon76]

If she was 14, if, she was a child herself. I know many 14 year olds. Not one of them belongs with an adult male.

Just a heads up but some Lutherans do accept the perpetual virginity of Mary as a pious opinion. I do, so did Luther, so does my pastor. It's consistent with what we see in John 19:26.

 

[Danielwright2311]

Matthew 12:46-50 New International Version (NIV)

46 While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother)" stood outside, wanting to speak to him. 47 Someone told him, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.”

 

[Ttalkkugjil]

Just a heads up but some Lutherans do accept the perpetual virginity of Mary as a pious opinion. I do, so did Luther, so does my pastor. It's consistent with what we see in John 19:26.

Citation please for Luther.

 

[FireDragon76]

Citation please for Luther.

It was a common belief at the time that he simply never questioned- none of the reformers really did. This was common among magisterial Protestants in fact, and was an assumption among them all until relatively recently. Also, the Latin version of the Augsburg Confession, the Augustana, affirms the semper virgo status of Mary. Debate exists as to its exact significance, however, and it is closer to being considered adiaphora now days by most Lutherans you would encounter. But do be respectful of other peoples conscience in this matter, esp. if you really do want to be Lutheran.

 

[Ttalkkugjil]

It was a common belief at the time that he simply never questioned- none of the reformers really did. This was common among magisterial Protestants in fact, and was an assumption among them all until relatively recently. Also, the Latin version of the Augsburg Confession, the Augustana, affirms the semper virgo status of Mary. Debate exists as to its exact significance, however, and it is closer to being considered adiaphora now days by most Lutherans you would encounter. But do be respectful of other peoples conscience in this matter, esp. if you really do want to be Lutheran.

So you don't have an actual citation to share then. Interesting that. Somewhat nullifies your claim.

 

[FireDragon76]

The main support for the idea that Mary only had Christ was that Christ entrusts her to the apostle John while he is on the cross instead of James. At that time that would have been unnecessarily strange and even potentially offensive to any of Christ's brothers (James was an apostle as well).

You also have to consider the purity aspect. Did Joseph really dare to put himself in an area God had made clean? We see the Jewish precautions on seminal discharge and uncleanliness.




"Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . I am inclined to agree with those who declare that 'brothers' really mean 'cousins' here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers.

{Pelikan, ibid., v.22:214-15 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539)}

A new lie about me is being circulated. I am supposed to have preached and written that Mary, the mother of God, was not a virgin either before or after the birth of Christ . . .{Pelikan, ibid.,v.45:199 / That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew (1523)}Scripture does not say or indicate that she later lost her virginity . . .
When Matthew [1:25] says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her . . . This babble . . . is without justification . . . he has neither noticed nor paid any attention to either Scripture or the common idiom."

-Martin Luther

As was recently evidence at St. Justin Martyr's Corner, I generally am highly skeptical of pious legends and fanciful stories. However, I don't believe the Semper Virgo status of Mary is the same. In the case of Semper Virgo, there is actual Scriptural evidence to support it.

Mary being perpetually virgin is really not that strange. Some women women in this day and age live that sort of life, they are just marginalized in a society that doesn't consider it normal any more.

 

[☦Marius☦]

As was recently evidence at St. Justin Martyr's Corner, I generally am highly skeptical of pious legends and fanciful stories. However, I don't believe the Semper Virgo status of Mary is the same. In the case of Semper Virgo, there is actual Scriptural evidence to support it.

Mary being perpetually virgin is really not that strange. Some women women in this day and age live that sort of life, they are just marginalized in a society that doesn't consider it normal any more.

I myself take the evangelicon with a grain of salt but on the other hand many miracle working, God bearing, prophetic saints believed it and saw the blessed virgin themselves so I don't exactly question it either.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Sorry, I forget where, but I once read about Jesus' parents that at the time they were betrothed Mary was about 14 years old, while Joseph was about 40.

Is this accurate? Is it what church tradition says? Does anyone here find it a little creepy?

By modern standards, it might be. But this isn't something we should judge by modern standards.

By the standards of Our Lady's time, an arrangement like you describe was in no means unheard of. We don't know Our Lady's exact age at the time she married Joseph. It's likely she was very young though.

In those times, a woman had no real prospects unless she was married. It's one of the reasons Our Lord hammered home the importance of caring for widows. Under those circumstances, it stands to reason that young girls might marry older men as a matter of standard practice. The average that I keep seeing is the girl would be around 13 or 14 years old while the man would be at least 18 or 20, or even older in some cases. It was a social norm of the time and nobody thought it was unusual.