Perpetual virginity (not a hate thread)

[Tu Es Petrus]

The Catholic church does not have an official position on that -- simply that Mary remained a virgin.......

I believe that is correct

 

[Uphill Battle]

perhaps they do not have on "official" position. I have never heard an RC espouse (pun intended) the "they were never married" argument. It's been pretty much consistantly and exclusively EO.

 

[Uphill Battle]

also, are you able to provide the earliest documentaion on the "Tradition" that they never married?

anyone have ANY answer for this?

Actually I have; but also each party had to "agree" (a form of obligation toward each other in agreement).

IOW, don't rape your spouse. It's pretty clear from "Onah" law, that sexual relations are expected, and technically mandatory. Or is the custom of bringing out the marriage bed cloth of no note? I personally think that is why the author went to such lengths to state that they had no relations until Jesus was born. Theirs wasn't a normal case, where, the groom and bride would consumate immediately.

Although without the terminology, this was discussed in Mariology some months ago. (The right to keep a pre-existing vow, the complaint of Moses' wife, etc.) Also, that pregnancy by another than the betrothed during the betrothal period was a 'covenant breaker'.

no evidence of any such vow exists.

and yes, the pregnancy by another would be a covenant breaker. It's why Joseph considered putting her away quietly, but the Angel told him the goods, and he was no longer afraid to take her as his wife.

 

[Thekla]

anyone have ANY answer for this?

IOW, don't rape your spouse. It's pretty clear from "Onah" law, that sexual relations are expected, and technically mandatory. Or is the custom of bringing out the marriage bed cloth of no note?

Actually, beyond the consummation, iirc. (And midrash on why Moses's wife was a bit miffed, as this was her 'right'.) OTOH, the having of children was also for the "seed" to arise out of Israel, the "seed" being the Messiah, Christ. As marriage was a 'completion' (which actually deals with the literal language of Genesis), one who is filled is completed by God. In this manner, the 'right' is subsumed to a spiritual reality (as with Moses and the elders for a time, when the "shadow/Law" is given - when the fullness of the shadow is incarnated Who confers wholeness eternally).

I personally think that is why the author went to such lengths to state that they had no relations until Jesus was born. Theirs wasn't a normal case, where, the groom and bride would consumate immediately.

I certainly agree that this is at least one side of the purpose -- and an assurance that Christ was conceived by the Holy Spirit. Given the heretical teachings and rumors that I mentioned previously (seemed to have started pretty early, too), this verse addresses those teachings as well - and of course, the fulfillment of prophecy (which gives the identity of the Child born to Mary).

no evidence of any such vow exists.

Whether you think one does or not, I was pointing out that the woman did have "agency" above those who arranged her betrothal (both father and husband).

and yes, the pregnancy by another would be a covenant breaker. It's why Joseph considered putting her away quietly, but the Angel told him the goods, and he was no longer afraid to take her as his wife.

understood, but two matters to consider:
again (sorry to re-mention ), the language does not support any conclusion beyond betrothal (same word for both, and the problem with terminology in general)

as she had been "set aside" by God in this manner, at what point does she become "not set aside" ? I can't think of one, but perhaps you - or someone here - knows of an OT example where anything that is dedicated to God's purpose is then returned to its former purpose ...

would a second betrothal be expected to occur ?

 

[Tu Es Petrus]

also, are you able to provide the earliest documentaion on the "Tradition" that they never married?

Is there a document saying they WERE married?

 

[Uphill Battle]

understood, but two matters to consider:
again (sorry to re-mention ), the language does not support any conclusion beyond betrothal (same word for both, and the problem with terminology in general)

the language certainly does. If it's the same word, than logical conclusion of marriage is very easy to extrapolate.

as she had been "set aside" by God in this manner, at what point does she become "not set aside" ? I can't think of one, but perhaps you - or someone here - knows of an OT example where anything that is dedicated to God's purpose is then returned to its former purpose ...

would a second betrothal be expected to occur ?

I don't think a second betrothal would at all be necessary. not sure why you think there would.

Is there a document saying they WERE married?

no, just common sense.

 

[Philothei]

The translation of the word "gynai" is not necessarily mean wife it can also be used for someone who is 'engaged" to someone. Being "legally" married has to do with been engaged... The actual ceremony could -and we are not told if it took place- at any time after the betrhothled ceremony. The angel said "do not hesitate to take Mary as your "wife"....That would mean to say go ahead and "marry" her... It is suggestive but if Mary decided to remain virgin in marriage it was her own choice and thus _since it was a private ceremony- he did not exactly had to actually marry her. According to Fathers the "marriage" between them was a "legal" obligation so that Christ will be brought up as a "son" of Joseph. There was a "broken covenant" already between the two... so no point to "privately" marrying Mary. The betrothal was enough to cover them legally. You are judging again from a 20th century standards about marriage.... and read the bible under this light. The reason the Bible does not tell us is because Mary's life was kept private as it would be shameful to say it straight out... It does though mention that "he knew her not" until (eos aionos) that is up to the end of times. Knowing Greek helps

 

[Uphill Battle]

it would be shameful to say it straight out, but supposedly 2000 years people HAVE been saying so? That doesn't make sense.


as for the word, if it could mean marriage, and it could mean betrothal, the logical conclusion is marriage, based on the evidence in the text. While altogether possible they never married, it is not the logical conclusion of the text.

I know we won't agree on that point.

using the "It meant only betrothal" aspect, it looks like this.


Mary and Joseph are betrothed.
Mary becomes pregnant via the HS.
Joseph thinks about breaking the betrothal.
Angel says, don't worry, you can betroth her, this is of the HS. (now waitaminute.... they're ALREADY betrothed. It makes no sense for the angel to say that.)
Joseph takes her as his betrothed. (waitaminute, they're already betrothed.)

if you take it that it means marriage:


Mary and Joseph are Betrothed.
Mary becomes pregnant via the HS.
Joseph thinks about breaking the betrothal.
Angel says, don't worry, you can marry her this is of the HS.
Joseph takes her as his wife.

now, without what you believe already, which seems logical, and which does not?

 

[Thekla]

so, when do they 'show' the sheet ?

according to Matthew, not while she's pregnant

when there is a young child ?
what would this say ...

 

[Uphill Battle]

so, when do they 'show' the sheet ?

according to Matthew, not while she's pregnant

when there is a young child ?
what would this say ...

doesn't specify, so I have no reason to.

 

[Thekla]

The point being, to "show sheets" would impugn Mary, and imply she (or they) had committed the sin of fornication, if this had been done any time after there was already a child.

If Joseph, a righteous man, was willing to "put her away quietly" (when it was his right to publicly expose her supposed infidelity), why would he place her in another potential public display of shame (when indeed, to do so would be a form of 'bearing false witness') ?

 

[Uphill Battle]

I don't understand how Marrying her would be adding to her shame?

 

[Thekla]

I don't understand how Marrying her would be adding to her shame?

Where marrying requires a "show" of the bridal bed sheets, they cannot be shown until after Christ was born (see Matthew). Yet to show them while she already has a child (after Christ was born) shows that the child was conceived before marriage.

 

[Uphill Battle]

I can do no more than speculate on the matter. I would think that the "show" was not always done, in small, out of the way marriages, it wouldn't be an issue. The details are not given at all.

I think though, that would be a fairly weak explaination of "he never married her." What about what I posted? Which is more logical?

 

[Thekla]

I think they're both logical (both consider cause and effect).
Personally, I find your extrapolation more supported in the translation and culture than in ME culture and language.

But if I may continue:
if in marriage such evidence (the bridal sheets) are required (as, iirc, they are) the exposure is still the exposure and is public. (The witness of Matthew attests the character of Joseph; to impugn her publicly is not in keeping with the sort of person Matthew describes.)

But even in a small out of the way marriage, she would still be either pregnant or have a child when married - again, a display of "possible infidelity" or pre-marital relations.

Either way, there is a public display (no matter how small) where at least a third party would become a 'witness' of something amiss.

On the other hand, were their previous betrothal known, it is also logical to conclude the child would (possibly) indicate a 'small private' marriage to others (whether or not a marriage occurred).

I think, however, that in Greek (see Philothei's post) the case is strong. Indeed, the ever-virginity is one the "Traditions" common to the EO, OO, and RC. It would be interesting to see about the Assyrian and Indian (iirc) have also maintained this.

 

[Tu Es Petrus]

Where marrying requires a "show" of the bridal bed sheets, they cannot be shown until after Christ was born (see Matthew). Yet to show them while she already has a child (after Christ was born) shows that the child was conceived before marriage.

Thats a new one on me. And I thought I'd heard'em all

 

[Standing Up]

Interesting conversation.

One of the scripture reasons for 'the sheet' is found at Deut. 22:13-21. The husband must charge the wife of not being a virgin.

'then the girl's father and her mother shall take and bring out the {evidence} of the girl's virginity to the elders of the city at the gate.'

Joseph apparently wouldn't have charged her with this, since he had already been informed prior by the angel.

Incidentally, the covenant of marriage thus is with blood.

 

[Uphill Battle]

I think they're both logical (both consider cause and effect).
Personally, I find your extrapolation more supported in the translation and culture than in ME culture and language.

But if I may continue:
if in marriage such evidence (the bridal sheets) are required (as, iirc, they are) the exposure is still the exposure and is public. (The witness of Matthew attests the character of Joseph; to impugn her publicly is not in keeping with the sort of person Matthew describes.)

But even in a small out of the way marriage, she would still be either pregnant or have a child when married - again, a display of "possible infidelity" or pre-marital relations.

Either way, there is a public display (no matter how small) where at least a third party would become a 'witness' of something amiss.

On the other hand, were their previous betrothal known, it is also logical to conclude the child would (possibly) indicate a 'small private' marriage to others (whether or not a marriage occurred).

I think, however, that in Greek (see Philothei's post) the case is strong. Indeed, the ever-virginity is one the "Traditions" common to the EO, OO, and RC. It would be interesting to see about the Assyrian and Indian (iirc) have also maintained this.

reading in Deuteronemy, I note that the proof of the display was used only if the man intended on claiming the woman was not a virgin.

I think in this case, it would be foregone. I'm still searching, but I have yet to find where display of the bridal "cloth" was a mandatory, every time display.

 

[Thekla]

reading in Deuteronemy, I note that the proof of the display was used only if the man intended on claiming the woman was not a virgin.

I think in this case, it would be foregone. I'm still searching, but I have yet to find where display of the bridal "cloth" was a mandatory, every time display.

Then my "iirc" stands as incorrect

 

[Uphill Battle]

perhaps, Thekla. I want to research fully before I say "I told you so."