Mary’s Perpetual Virginity: Undeniable Scriptural Facts

July 27, 2023 By Dave Armstrong

Several “why didn’t they use these terms?” arguments

[originally posted on Facebook on 8-31-22]

*
We see such arguments used to deny Mary’s perpetual virginity, so why not the other way around, too?

For example, Jesus’ “brethren” in Scripture are never called the children of Mary, and Mary is never called their mother, as in the case of Jesus:

John 2:1 (RSV) On the third day there was a marriage at Cana in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there;

*

John 19:25 . . . standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Mag’dalene.

*

In at least two instances, these “brothers” were mentioned but Mary wasn’t called their mother; only Jesus‘ mother:

Acts 1:14 All these with one accord devoted themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers.

*

Mark 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?” . . .

Doesn’t it stand to reason and isn’t it common sense that if these “brothers” were indeed the siblings of Jesus, that Acts 1:14 would read, instead: “Mary the mother of Jesus and his brothers”? Then we wouldn’t be having this dispute; it would have been so clear and undeniable. A similar argument could be made for Mark 6:3.

But instead, we have Jesus only being called “the son of Mary” there, while “son of Mary” referring to someone besides Jesus, or the phrase “sons of Mary” never appear in Holy Scripture.

Adelphos (“brother”) was used in the NT because it was following Aramaic / Hebrew cultural practice. They would say “brother” for both siblings and cousins and even for nephews (Abraham and Lot). We have to think how they thought then in that culture and with that language, not like we do today.

But even today we often use “brother” in the broader sense: “Band of brothers”, “Brother Jed will preach the sermon today”, “Brother” and “sister” for monks and nuns (and non-literal “Father” for priests), “am I my brother’s keeper?”, Ringo Starr (an only child) calling the other three Beatles “brothers” etc.

“Cousin” appears four times in the entire OT in the RSV (three of those in Jeremiah, another in Leviticus). But “brother[s]” appears 390 times, “brethren” 154 times and “sister[s]” 110 times. So by a 654-4 ratio, we have those terms (which at first glance sound like siblings) used over against “cousin.” Obviously, many times they were used for non-sibling relatives. Here are some examples of that:

Lot, who was called Abraham’s “brother” (Gen. 14:14), was the son of Haran, Abraham’s sibling (Gen. 11:26–28); therefore, was Abraham’s nephew, not his sibling or blood brother. Jacob is, likewise, referred to as the “brother” of Laban, who was literally his uncle (Gen. 29:15). Eleazar’s daughters married their “brethren,” who were the sons of Kish (Eleazar’s literal sibling). These “brethren”, then, were actually their first cousins (1 Chr. 23:21–22).

“Brother” and “sister” could also refer to kinsmen (Dt. 23:7; Neh. 5:7; Jer. 34:9), as in the reference to the forty-two “brethren” of King Azariah (2 Kgs. 10:13–14). Many more such examples could be given.

The NT (which came out of the same culture, and was Jewish-written save for Luke) totally reflects this. It has “brother[s]” 159 times, “brethren” 191, and “sister[s]” 24 times, while “cousin” appears exactly once (Col 4:10).

So that’s a 374-1 ratio (even more lopsided than the OT), and for the entire Bible (minus the Deuterocanon), the numbers are 1028-5, or “cousin” used instead of “brother” or “sister” once in every 206 times a relative is mentioned.

And so we see the exact same thing in the NT (use of “brother” for “cousin”) that occurs in the OT: in comparing Matthew 27:56, Mark 15:40, and John 19:25, we find that James and Joseph (mentioned in Matthew 13:55 with Simon and Jude as Jesus’ “brothers”) are the sons of Mary, wife of Clopas.

This other Mary (Mt 27:61; 28:1) is called Our Lady’s adelphe in John 19:25. Obviously, there are not two women named “Mary” in one family. One opinion, based on early patristic evidence, that I hold myself, is that this second Mary was the Blessed Virgin Mary’s sister in-law (Clopas being Joseph’s sibling). In this scenario, a sister-in-law is called “sister” in the NT (which we often do today in our own culture). In any event, we know for sure, from the above information, that James and Joseph were not Jesus’ siblings. They were likely His first cousins, or possibly more distant cousins.

Jude is called the Lord’s “brother” in Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3. If this is the same Jude who wrote the epistle bearing that name (as many think), he calls himself “a servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James” (Jude 1:1). Now, suppose for a moment that he was Jesus’ blood brother. In that case, he refrains from referring to himself as the Lord’s own sibling (while we are told that such a phraseology occurs several times in the New Testament, referring to a sibling relationship) and chooses instead to identify himself as James’ brother. This is far too strange and implausible to believe.

Moreover, James also refrains from calling himself Jesus’ brother, in his epistle (James 1:1: “servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ”): even though St. Paul calls him “the Lord’s brother” (Gal 1:19).

Strikingly, it looks like every time St. Paul uses adelphos (unless I missed one or two), he means it as something other than blood brother or sibling. He uses the word or related cognates no less than 138 times in this way. Yet we often hear about Galatians 1:19: “James the Lord’s brother.” 137 other times, Paul means non-sibling, yet amazingly enough, here he must mean sibling, because (so we are told) he uses the word adelphos? That doesn’t make any sense.

***

Seemingly “Only Son” References to Jesus, With His “Brothers” Apparently Placed in a Category Other Than Siblings / Liberal Protestant Version (LPV) Fashionable, Trendy Renderings [1-6-24]

Another little interesting tidbit to ponder, is how two Gospel writers (recording spoken words) described Jesus and His brothers in relation to Mary:
*

Mark 6:3 “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him.

*
Matthew 13:55 “Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?”

*
What is notable is the singular use of “son” in describing Jesus. This would seem to (at the very least, possibly) suggest “only son.” Importantly, it’s in the context of mentioning four of His “brothers” and also “sisters” in Mark. Now, if they are all understood to be — and were in fact — His siblings, why is He called “the son of Mary” and “the carpenter’s son”? Note also that in both passages, only He is called Mary’s “son” and also Joseph’s (in Matthew). The others are not.

It seems to me (maybe I’m weird), as an argument from implausibility, that this is not the language we would expect God to inspire the evangelists to use (remember, we’re talking about divinely inspired revelation), if in fact, Jesus had siblings. It would have been easy as pie for these passages to read so clearly, so manifestly plain, that there never would have been any dispute about the nature of the “brothers” of Jesus. All it would have taken would be a few changes of words. I submit that the passages would have read something like the following, if Jesus had siblings:
*

Mark 6:3 [Liberal Protestant Version: LPV] “Is not this the carpenter, one of the sons of Mary, along with his brothers James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him.

*
Matthew 13:55 “Is not this one of the carpenter’s sons? Is not his mother and the mother of his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas called Mary?”
*

One good reason why at least James and Joseph are not described as the Blessed Virgin Mary’s son in these passages, is because they are specifically called in other passages the sons of “the other Mary”: who is called a “sister” of Jesus’ mother Mary. The Bible is self-consistent as always.
*

Simple; easy; elementary. Instead, we get “the son of Mary” and “the carpenter’s son”: even when “brothers” are being discussed in the same context. These “brothers” and “sisters” are neither described as sons or daughters of Mary, nor of Joseph. Only Jesus is, using the singular “son.”

There are at least three other similar passages, from the other two Gospel writers (Luke wrote the Book of Acts):

John 1:45 Philip found Nathan’a-el, and said to him, “We have found him of whom Moses in the law and also the prophets wrote, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.”

John 6:42 They said, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? . . .

Acts 1:14 All these with one accord devoted themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers.

See how in the latter, a distinction is made between Mary as the mother of Jesus and “his brothers”, who are not called Mary’s sons? Nor is she called their mother.
*

The Liberal Protestant Version (LPV) would likely render these “too Catholic” verses as follows — and if Jesus had siblings, I think God would have made that crystal clear in Holy Scripture (saving us all of these endless disputes and wranglings about it):

*
John 1:45 Philip found Nathan’a-el, and said to him, “We have found him of whom Moses in the law and also the prophets wrote, Jesus of Nazareth, one of the sons [or, “children”] of Joseph.”

*

John 6:42 They said, “Is not this Jesus, one of the sons of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? . . .”

*

Acts 1:14 All these with one accord devoted themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus and his brothers.

*
But God didn’t make it plain and undeniable. Those verses do not read that way. I’d like to ask those who deny Mary’s perpetual virginity: why do you think that is? Why wouldn’t God have made it easy to understand and logically and grammatically impossible to deny, if Jesus had siblings?
*

There were many opportunities and contexts in Holy Scripture where this could easily have taken place, but for some odd reason they never do. And so, here we are 2,000 years later debating the issue, since Protestants in the late 17th and early 18th centuries decided to depart from the rest of Christendom and start denying that the Blessed Virgin Mary was a perpetual virgin.
*

***

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,300+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty-three books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: apologistdave@gmail.com. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

***

Photo credit: The Annunciation, by Peter Paul Rubens (1577-1640) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Summary: Explanation of how Hebrew culture used “brother” to describe non-siblings, and various interesting descriptions that are consistent with Mary’s Perpetual Virginity.

Dialogue w a Protestant on Mary’s Perpetual Virginity (II)

January 3, 2023 By Dave Armstrong

0 Comments

Biblical Proof That Three Named “Brethren” of Jesus Are Non-Siblings + Harmonious 2nd Century Evidence Regarding the Fourth (Simon)

“Iceman2525” is some sort of Protestant. His Disqus profile offers no further information about him. Much of this exchange took place underneath my article, “Jesus’ ‘Brothers’: Anti-Catholic Lies from a Tiny Lutheran Sect (ELS).” I compiled my counter-responses into a new article: Dialogue w a Protestant on Mary’s Perpetual Virginity (1-2-23), which he has now responded to in turn. I appreciate the substantive, cordial dialogue.

His words will be in blue. I have made some slight editorial corrections or additions in his text (playing editor a bit).

*****

See Part I

Thank you for sharing your article. There’s a few things I could challenge in the article but to keep this short I’ll limit [my response].

No need to keep it short. The more arguments, the merrier!

I don’t think all the adelphos usages for fellow countrymen or fellow believers really affects the other family relationship contested uses. By context we can nearly always know if adelphos is referring to a sibling/relative situation or fellow countrymen, non-related. Even today we can clearly know by context if someone is talking of an actual sibling or something else to refer to strong friendships, such as soldiers calling fellow soldiers their “brothers.”

One example: Paul uses adelphos as brethren/fellow believers almost entirely of course as that’s how he addresses church members in his writings. But this fact says nothing about how commonly adelphos is used for relative/kin.

I reviewed all the verses in Mark with adelphos, using a Bible app search. Ten uses definitely refer to siblings. One use was ambiguous. Six uses involved the contested Mark 3:31 – Mark 3:35 and Mark 6:3 passages.

In Matthew I found 30 verses with adelphos. Ten uses clearly mean sibling. Thirteen were for fellow countrymen or followers, and five uses concerned Jesus’ brothers. With just a few — like Matthew 10:21 — I’m not sure, but I doubt that cousin would fit the context.

So in my findings for Mark and Matthew regarding adelphos, I find twenty refer to actual siblings, thirteen to fellow countrymen, eleven in disputed Jesus’ brothers passages, and maybe three are ambiguous, but [in my opinion] I can’t fit cousin into the context of any of them.

Since twenty usages refer to siblings and I can’t find any other passage in Matthew or Mark where “cousin” would fit in context, I believe this gives strong weight to [the view that] adelphos [in the] Jesus/brothers passages refer to actual brothers and not cousins. I really don’t have time now to examine the rest of the New Testament, but I think this is a fair start.

I can, of course, elaborate on my findings if you have questions. Thank you.

I appreciate all this research and your response. We both have researched and written extensively about the usages of adelphos. I believe that what we can readily agree upon is the fact that examinations of variable usage alone are not the definitive solution to the determination of the exact nature of Jesus’ “brothers” in the NT. We will have to look at those passages in particular and see whether any exegetical or cross-referencing considerations can give us any solid clues as to what we’re disputing.

I have done that already in many papers of mine, which is why I urged you last time to grapple with some (hopefully much) of that, so that this dialogue can helpfully advance to the next stage. I summarized these sorts of arguments that I have made (and that Catholics and others who agree on this doctrine with us traditionally have made), in my article, “Jesus’ ‘Brothers’: Anti-Catholic Lies from a Tiny Lutheran Sect (ELS).” Here are two that specifically look at the most relevant passages:

In comparing Matthew 27:56, Mark 15:40, and John 19:25, we find that James and Joseph (mentioned in Matthew 13:55 with Simon and Jude as Jesus’ “brothers”) are the sons of Mary, wife of Clopas. This other Mary (Mt 27:61; 28:1) is called the Blessed Virgin Mary’s adelphe in John 19:25. Assuming that there are not two women named “Mary” in one family, this usage apparently means “cousin” or more distant relative. Matthew 13:55-56 and Mark 6:3 mention Simon, Jude and “sisters” along with James and Joseph, calling all adelphoi. The most plausible interpretation of all this related data is a use of adelphos as “cousins” (or possibly, step-brothers) rather than “siblings.” We know for sure, from the above information, that James and Joseph were not Jesus’ siblings. . . .

Jude is called the Lord’s “brother” in Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3. If this is the same Jude who wrote the epistle bearing that name (as many think), he calls himself “a servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James” (Jude 1:1). Now, suppose for a moment that he was Jesus’ blood brother. In that case, he refrains from referring to himself as the Lord’s own sibling (while we are told that such a phraseology occurs several times in the New Testament, referring to a sibling relationship) and chooses instead to identify himself as James‘ brother. This is far too strange and implausible to believe. Moreover, James also refrains from calling himself Jesus’ brother, in his epistle (James 1:1: “servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ”): even though St. Paul calls him “the Lord’s brother” (Gal 1:19).

Let’s look at these matters more closely:

Matthew 27:56 (RSV) among whom were Mary Mag’dalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, . . .

Mark 15:40 There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Mag’dalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salo’me,

John 19:25 . . . But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Mag’dalene.

There is some significant early patristic evidence (see more on this below) suggesting that Clopas was St. Joseph’s brother, in which case, Mary his wife would be the Blessed Virgin Mary’s sister-in-law (which would be in the range of uses for adelphe: “sister”). If that is the case, then James and Joseph / Joses would be Jesus’ first cousins, or more accurately, his step first cousins (Joseph not being literally His father). Note that this is not consistent with the “sons of Joseph from a previous marriage” / “Epiphanian” explanation.

Moreover, if someone wishes to assert that this “other Mary” (Mt 27:61; 28:1), who is described as the mother of James and Joseph (Mt 27:56; Mk 15:40), is Jesus‘ mother, that’s a real stretch, since it would entail her being described in two passages as the mother of these two or three persons, but not the mother of Jesus: Whose crucifixion she was watching at that very moment. That’s simply not plausible at all. Besides, in John 19:25, the two Marys are shown to be “sisters” (which can have meanings other than sibling). It seems obvious that they would not be siblings, having the same name, so sister-in-law or cousin makes much more sense.

This is why it is so important to synthesize and harmonize all the information that we can obtain in the four Gospels. Whoever believes in biblical inspiration holds that they are all harmonious, since the omniscient God is the ultimate author.

The named “brothers” of Jesus are James, Joseph, Simon, and Jude. Unnamed “sisters” are also mentioned (Mt 13:55-56; Mk 6:3). We know for sure that this “other Mary” is the mother of two of the four named “brethren” (James and Joseph). So that is virtual proof that 50% of the named brethren are children of Mary Clopas, the “other Mary”, whereas neither they nor any of the others (named or not) are ever called sons of the Blessed Virgin Mary: mother of Jesus. This is what the Bible informs us. I didn’t make it up! Catholics didn’t pull it out of a hat like a rabbit. This is God’s inspired revelation: the Holy Bible.

If two of these four named persons are known to be cousins, with a different mother than Jesus’ mother, then it is perhaps more likely (though not provable) that the whole group are non-siblings. Furthermore, it is known that extended families were the norm in ancient Israel (as indeed they probably still are today). I wrote abut this aspect in my article, Jesus’ “Brothers” Always “Hanging Around”: Siblings? [National Catholic Register, 5-11-18]. Here is one portion of that:

The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary (edited by Allen C. Myers, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, rev. ed., 1975) makes the nature of the Israelite family very clear, by noting that it could include more than one nuclear family (thus, cousins would be residing together):

The basic social unit, comprised of persons related by kinship and sharing a common residence. The Israelite family was an extended family known as the “father’s house” or “household” (Heb. “bet-ab”), consisting of two or more nuclear families (i.e., a married couple and their children) or composite families (an individual with multiple spouses and their offspring) . . . other kin (including grandparents), servants, concubines, and sojourners might also be reckoned part of the household (cf. Gen. 46:5-7, 26). (“Family,” p. 376)

Moreover, on the next page, this reference work noted that clans also usually “occupied the same or adjacent towns.” Extended families stuck together. It was like a perpetual family reunion. This would account for first or second or third cousins (all referred to as “brothers” in Semitic or Near Eastern culture: then and now) “hanging around” in one place.

Commenter Alex Lielbardis brought up this further argument:

Mark 6:4 And Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor, except in his own country, and among his own kin [(συγγενής, ές / suggenes)], and in his own house.” (cf. Jn 7:5: “For even his brothers did not believe in him.”)

He added:

The plural Greek word used refers to kinsfolk, relatives, or fellow countrymen. This same word is used by Luke in his account of the Annunciation which in the singular form specifically means a cousin: “And behold, your kinswoman [συγγενίς / syngenis] Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son; and this is the sixth month with her who was called barren” (Luke 1:36). Thus, Jesus apparently replies with his cousins (relatives or kin) in mind, in response to what was said by those who were offended at him.

As for Jude, I made my argument above. He called himself “a servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James” (Jude 1:1). Now, we’re supposed to believe that if he were literally Jesus’ sibling, this is how he would describe himself? That makes no sense whatsoever and stretches credibility beyond the breaking point. The fact that he says he is James’ brother is our first clue that he is the same person as the “brother” Jude. James does the same, writing that he was a “servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ” (Jas 1:1), while St. Paul calls him “the Lord’s brother” (Gal 1:19). All of this fits in perfectly with the “cousins” explanation. It does not harmonize with a “siblings” interpretation.

The only question remaining concerning this “brother” Jude, is whether he is the same person who wrote the epistle of Jude. The New Bible Dictionary (Eerdmans, 1962, “Jude, Epistle of”) states:

In the early Church there was only one James who could be referred to in this way without further specification — ‘James the Lord’s brother’ (as he is called in Gal. 1:19). This points to an identification of the author with the Judas who is numbered among the brothers of Jesus in Mt. 13:55 and Mk 6:3 . . . (p. 675)

Likewise, An Introduction to the New Testament (D. A. Carson, Douglas J. Moo, and Leon Morris; Zondervan, 1992) observes:

[T]hough he does not say [in Jude 1:1] which James he has in mind, it is generally held that this must be James the brother of Jesus, . . . If so, Jude is himself a brother of Jesus (Mark 6:3). (p. 459)

Both of these sources likely think — as typical Protestants today — that Jude was Jesus’ sibling, but for my present purposes, that doesn’t matter. I’m simply trying to establish that the consensus of scholarship is that he’s the same Jude who is one of the named “brethren.” This work offers a theory as to why Jude and James don’t call themselves Jesus’ “brother”: in their epistles:

[I]t seems that the brothers preferred to see themselves as servants of Christ rather than to claim kinship. In a spirit of true Christian humility, they preferred to class themselves with other believers rather than to take up a position that might be thought to assume a specifically close connection with Jesus. (p. 459)

I don’t think this is nearly as plausible or likely as their doing this because they weren’t His siblings. I submit that this argument proves too much. If the goal was humility, then why would Jude bother to say he was the brother of James: an eminent bishop at the time? That might be considered “non-humble” status-seeking name-dropping as well. He would more likely (under the “exceptionally humble” hypothesis) have said that he was a servant of Jesus, as James did. I contend that he wasn’t trying to be self-effacing. He was simply broadcasting his credentials of a sort: as the brother of a great Christian man.

I am maintaining that he is using adelphos in the sense of sibling, in describing James as his “brother”. We know that they are brothers because the Bible teaches (see above) that they had the same mother: which it never does when referencing “his [Jesus’] brothers”: eight times in the four Gospels, or “his sisters” twice (Mt 13:56; Mk 6:3). But the New Testament never says they were sons of Mary, mother of Jesus. If it had done so, we wouldn’t be arguing this. There would be no case at all for Mary’s perpetual virginity, and it would never have become a dogma of the Catholic Church and held by the great majority of Christians all through Church history.

Based on these considerations, I consider it to be biblically proven that 75% of the named “brothers” or “sisters” of Jesus are non-siblings (though the proof for Jude is less compelling than that for James and Joseph). That leaves Simon: the fourth named “brother.” There is no further relevant biblical information about him that I know of. But we have significant patristic data (from the second century), and further confirmation of Jude’s already biblically established cousin of Jesus status. Eusebius, in his History of the Church, documents Hegesippus (c. 110 – c. 180) as follows:

After the martyrdom of James and the conquest of Jerusalem which immediately followed, it is said that those of the apostles and disciples of the Lord that were still living came together from all directions with those that were related to the Lord according to the flesh (for the majority of them also were still alive) to take counsel as to who was worthy to succeed James.

They all with one consent pronounced Symeon, the son of Clopas, of whom the Gospel also makes mention; to be worthy of the episcopal throne of that parish. He was a cousin, as they say, of the Saviour. For Hegesippus records that Clopas was a brother of Joseph. (Book III, section 11, parts 1-2; translated by Arthur Cushman McGiffert. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 1. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. [1890], pp. 123-124 in the version translated by G. A. Williamson, Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1965; cf. Book III, section 32, part 4: “Mary, the wife of Clopas, who was the father of Symeon” and Book III, section 32, part 1: “Symeon, the son of Clopas”)

Hegesippus also describes the beginnings of the heresies that arose in his time, in the following words, rescued from oblivion by Eusebius:

And after James the Just had suffered martyrdom, as the Lord had also on the same account, Symeon, the son of the Lord’s uncle, Clopas, was appointed the next bishop. All proposed him as second bishop because he was a cousin of the Lord. (Book IV, section 22, part 4; Williamson translation, p. 181)

Thus, at this point, we have express biblical evidence that James and Joseph are sons of Mary Clopas; “the other Mary” and not of the Blessed Virgin Mary. It’s most plausible to hold that Jude also was; or was, at least, not a sibling. Now, thanks to Hegesippus, we know that Simon, or Symeon (a variant of Simon; see, e.g., Acts 15:14; 2 Pet 1:1), was also a son of Clopas and the “other Mary”; therefore also a cousin of Jesus and not a sibling.

Hegesippus confirms that Simon: mentioned together with James and Joseph and Jude in Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3, is the son of Mary wife of Clopas, who was an aunt of Jesus (St. Joseph’s brother and his and Mary’s sister-in-law). Scripture directly affirms that James and Joseph were the sons of Mary and Clopas (Mt 27:56; Mk 15:40).

These are my exegetical arguments regarding three of the four named brothers, and additional early patristic evidence for the fourth. I think they need to be grappled with by those who think that Jesus had literal siblings, so that Mary was not a perpetual virgin, which would disprove a Catholic and Orthodox dogma and also the belief of all of the Protestant founders and earliest leaders. If our Protestant brethren want to “argue Bible”, I’ve done that and am always more than willing and happy to do so. I think I have presented some very strong biblical arguments above, with also some good corresponding patristic evidence.

Lastly, “Iceman2525” previously stated:

If the popular tradition before Jerome was that Jesus’s brothers were from Joseph’s prior marriage, then I find it odd for Catholics to support any other theory/tradition that would come later from Jerome.

I have provided strong evidence for the “cousins” theory both from the Bible itself (and of such a nature that contradicts the step brothers theory), and also from the second century (Hegesippus, cited by Eusebius). So it is incorrect to claim that Jerome invented or first wrote about this in the 4th-5th centuries. Hegesippus died about 162 years before Jerome was born. Even Eusebius, who recorded Hegesippus’ mostly lost words, died a few years before Jerome’s birth.

As always, then (as I have invariably discovered in my 32 years of Catholic apologetics), both the Bible and early tradition support the Catholic position, and refute Protestant — in this case, later, not initial Protestant — departures from it.

I researched the uses of adelphos in the Gospels to counter what you presented as strong arguments [regarding] ratios of usages that supposedly cast doubt on the actual brother meanings.

In one of your replies you assured me that there would be “lots of times” adelphos would have a cousin usage for the New Testament.

That’s not quite accurate. I stated:

I don’t have time to go through all the usages and determine when “cousin” or any other non-sibling was meant, but it surely must be a lot of times. [italics added presently]

However, my review of the four Gospels has shown zero usages for cousins (I’m excluding the usages referring to Jesus’s brothers).

But the “brothers” are what we are discussing! I have shown that Joseph and James are Jesus’ cousins; therefore, when they were called adelphos / brothers, it meant, in fact, cousin. So adelphos meant cousin in at least those two cases.

So far my assumption would be that a cousin meaning would be an uncommon one. Yet if there are lots of cousin usages in NT besides the ones you site relating to Jesus then please share.

I’ve shown that two of the four “brothers” were cousins. That’s what matters in this discussion. You have to now directly grapple with that.

For the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John I found adelphos usage 41 times clearly indicating actual brothers/sisters, and 19 uses for fellow countrymen/fellow believers.

That’s why I claimed that ” ‘cousin’ or any other non-sibling” was the meaning “a lot of times.” You have verified 19 of these. Thanks for making my point!

18 were associated with Jesus. Maybe three other verses not clear enough but context doesn’t seem to support any meaning for cousin.

Disregarding all the counts associated with Jesus brothers I find it interesting that I found over forty instances of adelphos used for sibling and zero uses for cousin. Yet we are supposed to believe the only exceptions to the overwhelming meaning as sibling are when it’s used concerning Jesus’s brothers really means cousin.

Again, I am making arguments regarding the “brothers” of Jesus. You will have to address those eventually.

Your sorting out all the Mary’s as in John 19:25 is intriguing and something that can take a little time to sort out, as I still am [doing].

Fair enough.

You make some fair points and well thought out but can’t say you settled it.

Thanks! Then please show me where my argument for Joseph and James went astray.

You of course say there are three Marys listed but there are some who say the grammar shows four women. I have no Greek studies so I’m not qualified in this. But apparently the names Mary, James and Joseph were quite popular at that time and so very plausible two Marys could have sons with the same names.

Possible, but surely not “plausible” . . .

Plus Mark 15:40 calls this James “the less” along with Joses perhaps to erase confusion with James the Lord’s brother. But this whole sorting out all the Mary’s and who they are can be complex and as I see elsewhere there are a variety of theories.

As for Jude referring to himself as a “servant of Jesus Christ” instead of the Lord’s brother, this is nothing but an act of humility and putting Christ first. Should we expect Jude to go around town telling everyone “Hey! I’m Jude the Lord’s brother” with a proud look on his face?

You’re assuming that it must be an act of pride to do so. But that doesn’t follow. It could simply have a meaning of “hey, I grew up with Jesus [as His blood brother]! I know Him very well, so I have a strong basis for my opinions.”

Jude could go around calling himself the brother of Christ or recognize he is first a servant of Christ before anything else.

It’s not an “either/or” scenario. That’s where your premise is dubious.

Thank you again for your replies.

Thank you, too, for the continuing cordial interaction.

As I said before, I think we have exhausted the procedure of counting up uses of adelphos. I started to again directly examine the named “brothers” of Jesus (as I had already done at the outset). As far as I am concerned, it’s proven from cross-referencing that Joseph and James were His cousins: sons of the “other Mary” who is called the Blessed Virgin Mary’s sister (adelphe).

Do you grant that this is the case? If not, why? Your burden would then be to show from the Bible that they are actually siblings. Best wishes in that endeavor. But if you concede that point, then that’s half of the named “brothers” shown to be cousins (two of four), which is quite significant, I think.

I made a biblical argument from plausibility for Jude being a non-sibling. I think it works; you don’t. That’s the nature of those sorts of arguments; people disagree on what is plausible. They’re not airtight arguments, by their very nature. So there’s nowhere else to go with that.

My argument for Simon being a cousin came from early tradition (Hegesippus: 2nd century). This contradicted your claim that Jerome basically came up with the cousins theory much later. You’d have to tell me why you would question that (if you do).

***

See the follow-up article: Hegesippus (2nd c.) and the “Brothers” of Jesus (Including a “New” Argument from How Jesus is Described in Relation to Mary and Joseph) [1-5-23].

***

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,000+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

***

Photo credit: Madonna and Child (c. 1743), by Pompeo Batoni (1708-1787) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Summary: I make a thorough response to Protestant arguments against Mary’s perpetual virginity, including exegetical proof that 75% of Jesus’ named “brothers” are non-siblings.

Dialogue w a Protestant on Mary’s Perpetual Virginity

January 2, 2023 By Dave Armstrong

0 Comments

“Iceman2525” is some sort of Protestant. His Disqus profile offers no further information about him. This exchange took place underneath my article, “Jesus’ ‘Brothers’: Anti-Catholic Lies from a Tiny Lutheran Sect (ELS).” His words will be in blue. I have made some slight editorial corrections or additions in his text.

*****

[Regarding] your first argument of Luke [2:]41-51, I don’t think it should be expected that siblings would be mentioned. Jesus’s siblings would have been young and hardly responsible for their brother Jesus. Mary and Joseph would have that responsibility of finding Jesus. If I found a lost child I would likely tell them that their parents have been looking for them. Even if the child had siblings I wouldn’t feel the need to mention them because his parents are his caregivers.

Also, if you are going to take the position that when Jesus’s brothers are mentioned they refer to his cousins, then that seemingly contradicts the earliest Catholic tradition of Jesus’s brothers being from a prior marriage of Joseph. If Catholics trust tradition then seems like that would be the one to stick with.

As for the adelphos argument, have you made a count of the occurrences in the NT where adelphos means actual brother/sibling versus cousin usage? My point is that if adelphos is used for sibling say 98% of the time, then the usage for cousin would be a rare one. Relying on an uncommon usage of a word doesn’t give much confidence for that argument. We already know NT writers use words for cousin. I am a Protestant but I’m just respectfully offering my insight. Thank you.

Thanks for your reply. So you think Mary bore no children between Jesus’ birth and about age 28, and then proceeded to have four or more? You think that’s likely? [these questions were never replied to]

Whether you talked to siblings of a lost and found child is irrelevant. What’s relevant is what Mary said, which confirms (in a probabilistic fashion) that Jesus was an only child.

There are two early traditions: the theory you mention (held by Orthodox and eastern Catholics) and St. Jerome’s cousins theory (held mostly by Catholics). In cases like that I look to Scripture to see which theory it seems to favor, and in my opinion, it favors the cousin theory.

I have looked into relative numbers of terms. Adelphos is used for a broad range of relational terms. And that’s because it is reflecting Hebrew / Aramaic, which didn’t have a term for cousin. Sungenis and anepsios (“cousin” in Greek) appear 12 times and once (Col 4:10), respectively, in the NT. Adephos and its cognates appear 346 times. So between the three terms, adelphos, etc. is used 96% of the time.

Recently I wrote about Josephus’ use of adelphos and it mirrored almost exactly the NT pattern. So does LXX [the Septuagint], which has adelphos 649 times, anepsios once, and sungenis five times. So that’s a 99% usage of adelphos and its cognates for relatives.

Thank you.

I know you said you looked at Scripture to see which tradition looks more favorable but still this raises a question. If Catholics put so much trust in tradition, how can one choose an alternative theory over the earlier most dominant tradition that the brothers were from Joseph’s previous marriage? If you can’t have confidence in early tradition in this case, then how can you have complete confidence in other accepted traditions? If early church fathers can be wrong here then they can be wrong in anything else even if the tradition is widely believed. Either these were Joseph’s sons from a previous marriage or the brothers were actually cousins. At least one tradition is wrong.

As for “adelphos” I must not have been clear enough of what I was meaning. I’m asking how many times in the NT does adelphos mean cousin compared to how many times adelphos is used to mean an actual brother as a sibling. My point is that if adelphos is used to refer to an actual brother a few hundred times or whatever compared to only a handful of times adelphos is used to refer to a cousin then I don’t see that as a strong argument for your side. Depending on an uncommon word usage to fit your belied just stretches it a bit. Especially when the NT writers used other words for cousin such as sungenis.

Plus it shouldn’t matter if Hebrew/Aramaic didn’t have a word for cousin because the NT writers wrote in Greek and I’ve read evidence that many Jewish people spoke Greek or as a second language. So the NT writers had capability to differentiate words for brother and cousin.

You’re not understanding. The Greek in the NT still reflects Hebrew culture and the then-current language of Aramaic. It didn’t even have a word for cousin, and so the word for “brother” (ach: Strong’s Hebrew word #251), would be used for a wide range of relatives and even countrymen. Jesus Himself did this, using adelphos. The NT reflects Hebrew culture in that way, and so does the Greek LXX and someone like Josephus.

I don’t have time to go through all the usages and determine when “cousin” or any other non-sibling was meant, but it surely must be a lot of times.

Tradition develops, and there can be a variety of sub-traditions or non-essential traditions, especially early on. The essence of the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity is that she had no other children, and that even Jesus’ birth was supernatural (virgin during delivery, or “in partu” virginity; in biological terms that we understand today: an unbroken hymen). Both hypotheses (step-brothers or cousins) hold to Mary’s perpetual virginity. As long as that is upheld (which is the tradition passed down), different ways of working it out are no problem. It’s permissible diversity. The ones who really departed from the Grand Tradition on this were Protestants, 150-200 years after the Protestant Revolt, as a result of theological liberalism: which always breaks down traditions and internal orthodoxy wherever it is found.

Perhaps for a future article you could research how many times in NT adelphos refers to a relative and compare that to it’s more common usage meaning sibling. I think that would help put it all into perspective.

I don’t agree that the Greek in the NT entirely mirrors the Aramaic language, as you say. To some extent, sure, but as I said some of the NT writers used Greek words for relative so they obviously knew how to differentiate between brother and relative. For example Luke said he used firsthand accounts and [seeing] that Greek language was known and even used by the Jews at that time, I would think Luke’s careful [investigations] would clarify if these were Jesus’ siblings or relatives, for an accurate account. I can’t prove that, but [it] makes more sense to me.

You say it’s no problem if there [are] differing theories (step-siblings or cousins) because they both support Mary’s perpetual virginity. But I think this raises an issue.

Since Mary’s perpetual virginity is a dogma, then I assume examples of tradition were used to support this essential belief. And in that support I would imagine that the issue of Jesus’ brothers, as Scripture mentions, would be necessary to be explained away. I haven’t read the official complete dogma though as I’m having a hard time finding it for some reason.

Now if you have two competing theories to explain away Jesus brothers and both are based on tradition, then at least one of the two has to be wrong. I suppose theoretically there could be some combo of the two but [that’s] unlikely. If either of the widely held traditions is wrong, then how can other traditions used to support Marian dogmas be confidently trusted?

If the widely held idea that Jesus’ brothers were actually step brothers came from a gnostic source, then it’s also very plausible [that] the idea of Mary’s perpetual virginity came from the same gnostic source. I realize that you believe the magisterium and Pope are Holy Spirit-guided to declare the truth from traditions, but of course I don’t agree [with] that. I see how even the New Testament speaks of how quickly false doctrines quickly develop, and that’s one reason I don’t [think it’s] wise to put so much faith in tradition.

You raise what you believe to be an internal inconsistency in the Catholic position. It isn’t. The dogma we are required to believe in is the perpetual virginity of Mary. As I already noted, both the “step-brothers” and “cousins” theories are perfectly consistent with that. Explanations for a dogma are different from the dogma itself, and can be held, just as different exegetical opinions are held on Bible passages, or as there are different theories of predestination within Catholicism that are allowed to be held by Catholics, as long as one believes that the elect were predestined by God.

You can rail against Catholic doctrines all you like, but I’m not moved by that unless and until you grapple with my many biblical arguments supporting perpetual virginity (that were handily summarized in the article above). Feel free to do so. Many more such are listed on my Blessed Virgin Mary web page. If you think your position is so superior to ours, then certainly you can easily refute my arguments. I look forward to it! But simply stating your position or opposition to another one is not an argument. I have appealed to Scripture (as I almost always do in arguments with Protestants, because that is their preferred ground, and what we hold in common); so I challenge you: show where my arguments went wrong.

Here’s another argument I made elsewhere:

Luke was a Greek Gentile. Paul, though Jewish, was raised in the very cosmopolitan, culturally Greek town of Tarsus. But even so, both still clearly used adelphos many times with the meaning of non-sibling:

Luke 10:29 [RSV] But he, desiring to justify himself, said to Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”

Acts 3:17 “And now, brethren, I know that you acted in ignorance, as did also your rulers.”

Acts 7:23, 25-26 “When he was forty years old, it came into his heart to visit his brethren, the sons of Israel.. . . [25] He supposed that his brethren understood that God was giving them deliverance by his hand, but they did not understand. [26] And on the following day he appeared to them as they were quarreling and would have reconciled them, saying, `Men, you are brethren, why do you wrong each other?’”

Romans 1:13 I want you to know, brethren, . . .

Romans 9:3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen by race.

1 Thessalonians 1:4 For we know, brethren beloved by God, that he has chosen you;

And here’s yet another argument from Paul’s use of language, from a different article of mine:

Paul’s letters were written in Greek, because they were written to Greek-speaking people. Therefore, he chose [very few times] to use a Greek word for cousin (whereas Aramaic didn’t have such a word). . . .

Paul could also choose to use adelphos . . . because it was understood in Greek to have a wide variety of meanings. Even today we (in English, at any rate) often use “brother” in the broader sense: “Band of brothers”, “Brother Jed will preach the sermon today”, “Brother” and “Sister” for monks and nuns (and non-literal “Father” for priests), “am I my brother’s keeper?”, Ringo Starr (an only child) calling the Beatles his “brothers” etc. Therefore, this use in and of itself doesn’t prove that he was referring to siblings of Jesus. It’s not funny or silly; it’s how language works. . . .

Lucas [Banzoli] denied that the Greek word suggenes or sungenis had a “broader meaning” than cousin. He’s wrong about that. Sungenis (Greek for “cousin”) and its cognate sungenia appear in the New Testament fifteen times (sungenia: Lk 1:61; Acts 7:3, 14; sungenis: Mk 6:4; Lk 1:36, 58; 2:44; 14:12; 21:16; Jn 18:26; Acts 10:24; Rom 9:3; 16:7, 11, 21). But they are usually translated kinsmen, kinsfolk, or kindred in KJV: that is, in a sense wider than cousin: often referring to the entire nation of Hebrews. Thus, the eminent Protestant linguist W. E. Vine, in his Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, lists sungenis not only under “Cousin” but also under “Kin, Kinsfolk, Kinsman, Kinswoman.”

In all but two of these occurrences, the authors were either Luke or Paul. Luke was a Greek Gentile. Paul, though Jewish, was raised in the very cosmopolitan, culturally Greek town of Tarsus. But even so, both still clearly used adelphos many times with the meaning of non-sibling (Lk 10:29; Acts 3:17; 7:23-26; Rom 1:7, 13; 9:3; 1 Thess 1:4). They understood what all these words meant, yet they continued to use adelphos even in those instances that had a non-sibling application.

Strikingly, it looks like every time St. Paul uses adelphos (unless I missed one or two), he means it as something other than blood brother or sibling. He uses the word or related cognates no less than 138 times in this way. Yet we often hear about Galatians 1:19: “James the Lord’s brother.” 137 other times, Paul means non-sibling, yet amazingly enough, here he must mean sibling, because (so we are told) he uses the word adelphos? That doesn’t make any sense.

“Cousin” appears four times in the entire OT in the RSV (three of those in Jeremiah, another in Leviticus). But “brother[s]” appears 390 times, “brethren” 154 times and “sister[s]” 110 times. So by a 654-4 ratio, we have those terms (which at first glance sound like siblings) used over against “cousin.” Obviously, many times they were used for non-sibling relatives.

*

The New Testament (which came out of the same culture, and was Jewish-written save for Luke) totally reflects this. It has “brother[s]” 159 times, “brethren” 191, and “sister[s]” 24 times, while “cousin” appears exactly once (Col 4:10). So that’s a 374-1 ratio (even more lopsided than the OT), and for the entire Bible (minus the Deuterocanon), the numbers are 1028-5, or “cousin” used instead of “brother” or “sister” once in every 206 times a relative is mentioned.

***

See Part II: Dialogue w a Protestant on Mary’s Perpetual Virginity (II): Biblical Proof That Three Named “Brethren” of Jesus Are Non-Siblings + Harmonious 2nd Century Evidence Regarding the Fourth (Simon) [1-3-23]

***

Photo credit: Madonna and Child (c. 1743), by Pompeo Batoni (1708-1787) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Summary: A Protestant makes several arguments against Mary’s perpetual virginity, & I provide thorough Catholic responses, including analyses of two Greek words for “cousin.”

Jesus at Twelve in the Temple & Mary’s Perpetual Virginity

December 26, 2022 By Dave Armstrong

The Nature & Force of Arguments from Silence, Plausibility, Probability, & Cumulative Effect Explained

[words of questioners in blue. The first may have been an atheist; the second a Protestant evangelical]

“We don’t see a word about any other children, who certainly would have gone with Joseph and Mary to observe the Passover in Jerusalem.” So the argument from silence is okay when you use it?

The argument from silence has limitations, but it’s not all bad. We just have to understand how far it goes, logically (how much it proves). It’s being used legitimately in this instance. Let me explain how the reasoning works:
*

1. If Jesus had brothers and/or sisters and He was the oldest, then He certainly would have had siblings at twelve years old: particularly since Mary was estimated to be sixteen at His birth, which would then make her still only around 28 at this time. We’re to believe that it makes sense that she bore her first child at sixteen and then had no more from 16-28, and then had four or more after that? That’s not very plausible.

*
2. But none are in sight, when He journeyed with Joseph and Mary to Jerusalem for the Passover (which the whole family would have been bound to do). Luke states (2:46) that the search for Jesus took three days before He was found in the temple. Mary said, “your father and I have been looking for you anxiously” (2:48, RSV). If other children had been with them, they certainly would have been looking, too; in which case, Mary would have said, “your father and I and your brothers and sisters have been looking for you anxiously.” But she didn’t say that.

*
3. Therefore, this strongly suggests that He had no siblings: at least not when He was twelve.

*
4. Such a suggested or relatively more likely or more plausible scenario is consistent with Mary’s perpetual virginity, but not with the historically late-arriving view (denied by Luther, Calvin, and all the first Protestant leaders) that Mary had other children.
*

5. When things like this (arguments from plausibility or probability) happen again and again, they achieve a cumulative effect, that make them stronger, taken together, just as a rope becomes stronger, the more strands it has. So for example, here are two more of these sorts of “arguments from silence”:
*

A) Nowhere does the NT identify any of Jesus’ “brothers” (“adelphoi“) as Mary’s children, even when they are referenced together (cf. Mk 3:31 ff.; 6:3 ff.; Jn 2:12; Acts 1:14).

*

B) In the NT, they are never called Joseph’s children, either.

*
6) If Jesus had brothers and sisters (full siblings), we wouldn’t expect that any of these things would be the case, or predict them (is another way of putting it).

Leaving one child behind would have been much more likely while traveling with a number of children. Leaving your only child behind [would be] very unlikely.

Protestant commentaries for Luke 2:44:

Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers:

Supposing him to have been in the company.—The company was probably a large one, consisting of those who had come up to keep the Passover from Nazareth and the neighbouring villages. It is not certain, but in the nature of things it is sufficiently probable, that the boys of such a company congregated together, and travelled apart from the others.

Barnes’ Notes on the Bible:

*
Supposing him to have been in the company – It may seem very remarkable that parents should not have been more attentive to their only son, and that they should not have been assured of his presence with them when they left Jerusalem; but the difficulty may be explained by the following considerations:
*

1. In going to these great feasts, families and neighbors would join together, and form a large collection.

*

2. It is not improbable that Jesus was “with” them when they were about to start from Jerusalem and were making preparations. Seeing him then, they might have been certain as to his presence.

*

3. A part of the company might have left before the others, and Joseph and Mary may have supposed that he was with them, until they overtook them at night and ascertained their mistake.

Expositor’s Greek Testament:

*
A company would be made up of people from the same neighbourhood, well acquainted with one another. . . . It is quite conceivable how they should have gone on so long without missing the boy, . . .

Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges:

In the numerous and rejoicing caravans of kinsmen and fellow-countrymen relations are often separated without feeling any anxiety.

Neither questioner counter-replied (what else is new?).

***

Photo credit: painting by J.M.H. Hofmann; engraved by Illman Brothers (Germantown, Philadelphia, 1880) [public domain / picryl]

***

Summary: I explain how the argument from silence related to Jesus in the temple at twelve is one of many significant cumulative evidences for Mary’s perpetual virginity.

Why Protestants Reject Mary’s Perpetual Virginity / “In Partu”

September 3, 2022 By Dave Armstrong

I think a lot of the objection is sheer overreaction against Catholicism and a manifestation of the disdain for the mistaken view that we worship Mary or at the very least place her much higher than she should be (far beyond what Scripture teaches: so they argue).

So they think it’s merely a “Catholic thing” and enter any discussion about it with that emotional objection and “baggage” or strong predisposition before even considering the many solid and serious exegetical arguments that we can bring to the table.

The other influence, I believe, is the Protestant and secularist notion that Catholics are supposedly obsessively “against sex” and so of necessity had to make Mary into a perpetual virgin (i.e., make up the whole doctrine).

In fact, it has nothing to do with sex at all. We believe it was God’s will and “fitting” in order to protect the doctrines of the virgin birth and the uniqueness of Christ; His status as the incarnate God-Man; God in the flesh.

As with the Rosary, title of Theotokos (Mother of God), her Immaculate Conception, and anything and everything else related to the Blessed Virgin Mary in biblical and Catholic Mariology, it’s all about Jesus, not Mary. She is the humble and perfectly willing handmaiden of the Lord. That’s what so many of these critics don’t get.

Part of the dogma is that the birth of Jesus was miraculous: not just in how He was conceived, but in the actual birth itself. It was completely miraculous; not a natural birth (though the usual biological aspects of a nine-month pregnancy were natural).

This is what is known as the in partu virginity, or Mary’s virginity during the birth. She remained intact. And yes, this is Catholic dogmatic teaching (de fide dogma: the highest level of infallibility), and even Luther agreed with this aspect. Mary was, thus, a virgin before, during and after Jesus’ birth (or, ever virgin). The classical, physical definition of a virgin is in play here; not merely the absence of sexual activity.

So if she had had other children in the natural way, skeptics would simply doubt the miraculous nature of Jesus’ birth. This is one reason, I believe, that God willed Mary’s in partu virginity and Jesus as an only child and Mary as a perpetual virgin.

It’s altogether “fitting” (as the Church believes) that the Mother of God [the Son] should not have other children. One either immediately grasps that or they do not. Mary’s womb was “holy ground” and it wasn’t appropriate for any created human being to be there, when God had already occupied it. It was the human “holy of holies” so to speak. Mary was the ark of the new covenant.

But it’s not just a “Catholic thing”, since the Orthodox agree with it, as did all of the original leaders of the Protestant Revolt. It’s theological liberalism that worked against its belief, not traditional Protestantism. But few know that history. It’s important to know.

See scores and scores of related articles on my Blessed Virgin Mary web page.

***

Photo credit: The Virgin of the Lilies (1899), by William-Adolphe Bouguereau (1825-1905) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Summary: My theory as to why Protestants reject Mary’s perpetual virginity: they think Catholics are “anti-sex” and elevate Mary higher than they think the Bible would justify.

Calvin & Mary’s Perpetual Virginity (vs. Francisco Tourinho)

June 3, 2022 By Dave Armstrong

Francisco Tourinho is a Brazilian Calvinist apologist. He described his theological credentials on my Facebook page:

I have the respect of the academic community for my articles published in peer review magazines, translation of unpublished classical works into Portuguese and also the production of a book in the year 2019 with more than 2000 copies sold (with no marketing). In addition I have higher education in physical education from Piauí State University and theology from the Assemblies of God Biblical Institute, am currently working towards a Masters from Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary, and did post-graduate work at Dom Bosco Catholic University. Also, I am a professor in the Reformed Scholasticism discipline at the Jonathan Edwards Seminary in the postgraduate course in Philosophical Theology. [edited slightly for more flowing English]

*****

This is a reply to his article, “JOÃO CALVINO DEFENDIA A VIRGINDADE PERPÉTUA DE MARIA?” [Did John Calvin Defend the Perpetual Virginity of Mary?] (6-27-18). His words will be in blue, John Calvin’s in green.

Today I came across the following quote:

There were certain people who wanted to suggest from this passage [Mt 1,25] that the Virgin Mary had other children besides the Son of God, and that Joseph was intimately related to her afterwards; but what stupidity! The gospel writer did not intend to record what happened afterwards; he simply wanted to make Joseph’s obedience clear (…). He therefore never dwelt with her nor shared her company (…). Furthermore, Our Lord Jesus Christ is called the firstborn. This is not because there was a second or a third son, but because the Gospel writer is stressing his precedence.— John Calvin. Sermon on Matthew 1:22-25. Year 1562 (Max Thurian. Mary: Mother of All Christians (translated by Nevill B. Cryer, New York: Herder & Herder, 1963, pp. 39-40)”

The friend who defended the Marian dogma of perpetual virginity categorically stated, through this source (Max Thurian apud Calvino), that the great reformer defended the Marian dogma. I went looking for the source, and I found the same quote on several Catholic apologetics websites, but they all look like this, a quote, that is, a secondary source.

This was almost certainly derived, or indirectly derived from one of my blog articles.

I also looked for the sermon quoted by the apologists, attributed to John Calvin, and I didn’t find it either.

You’ve come to the right place, then, because I ran across the original primary source in French. I didn’t have it at first (or else I would have cited it). Then I did. It has been posted on my blog since 10-14-14: three years and eight months before the article I am now critiquing.

But first, let’s look at the quotation I produced: longer than the above “abridged” version:

There have been certain strange folk who have wished to suggest from this passage [Matt 1:25] that the Virgin Mary had other children than the Son of God, and that Joseph had then dwelt with her later; but what folly this is! for the gospel writer did not wish to record what happened afterwards; he simply wished to make clear Joseph’s obedience and to show also that Joseph had been well and truly assured that it was God who had sent His angel to Mary. He had therefore never dwelt with her nor had he shared her company. There we see that he had never known her person for he was separated from his wife. He could marry another all the more because he could not enjoy the woman to whom he was betrothed; but he rather desired to forfeit his rights and abstain from marriage, being yet always married: he preferred, I say, to remain thus in the service of God rather than to consider what he might still feel that he could come to. He had forsaken everything in order that he might subject himself fully to the will of God.

And besides this, our Lord Jesus Christ is called the first-born. This is not because there was a second or a third, but because the gospel writer is paying regard to the precedence. Scripture speaks thus of naming the first-born whether or no there was any question of the second. Thus we see the intention of the Holy Spirit. This is why to lend ourselves to foolish subtleties would be to abuse Holy Scripture, which is, as St. Paul says, “to be used for our edification.”

From this we learn several things:

1. It serves as a further interpretation or clarification of his allegedly “agnostic” commentary on Matthew 1:25, as actually affirming perpetual virginity.

2. It shows that his denial of a vow of perpetual virginity from Mary is not necessarily and not in fact the same as a denial of her perpetual virginity.

3. Calvin does indeed believe in the traditional doctrine, as we see in his statement: “not because there was a second or a third” and his assertion that Joseph never dwelt with Mary. Mary had no further children. This is why he habitually refers to her as “the virgin” in his writings, much like Catholics have through the centuries. It implies perpetual virginity.

4. Since they never lived together, according to Calvin, obviously they had no children together. Thus, Mary was perpetually a virgin.

This 1562 sermon may be one reason why many Protestant (including Calvinist) scholars agree that Calvin adhered to Mary’s perpetual virginity:

David F. Wright, in his book, Chosen by God: Mary in Evangelical Perspective (London: Marshall Pickering, 1989, pp. 173, 175), stated:

. . . his more careful biblicism could insist on only Mary’s refraining from intercourse before the birth of Jesus (i.e., her virginity ante partum). On the other hand, he never excluded as untenable the other elements in her perpetual virginity, and may be said to have believed it himself without claiming that Scripture taught it. . . . [Calvin] commonly speaks of Mary as “the holy Virgin” (and rarely as simply as “Mary” preferring “the Virgin”, etc.).

Thomas Henry Louis Parker, in his Calvin: an Introduction to his Thought (Westminster John Knox Press, 1995), concurs:

. . . the Virgin Birth, which Calvin holds, together with the perpetual virginity of Mary. (p. 66)

He is the author of several books about Calvin, such as John Calvin: A Biography (Westminster John Knox Press, 2007), and Oracles Of God: An Introduction To The Preaching Of John Calvin (Lutterworth Press, 2002), Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries (S.C.M. Press, 1971), Calvin’s Preaching (Westminster John Knox Press, 1992), Calvin’s Old Testament Commentaries (Westminster John Knox Press, 1993), and several other Calvin-related volumes, and translator of Calvin’s Harmony of the Gospels in its 1995 Eerdmans edition. Presumably, he knows enough about Calvin to have a basis for his beliefs about this matter and Calvin’s own position.

The article “Mary” (by David F. Wright) in the Encyclopedia of the Reformed Faith (edited by Donald K. McKim, Westminster John Knox Press,1992, p. 237), proclaims:

Calvin was likewise less clear-cut than Luther on Mary’s perpetual virginity but undoubtedly favored it. Notes in the Geneva Bible (Matt. 1:18, 25; Jesus’ “brothers”) defend it, as did Zwingli and the English reformers . . .

Donald G. Bloesch, in his Jesus Christ: Savior and Lord (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2006, p. 87), joins the crowd:

Protestantism . . . remained remarkably open to the idea of Mary’s perpetual virginity. Among others, Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Wollebius, Bullinger and Wesley claimed that Mary was ever-virgin (semper virgo). The Second Helvetic Confession and the Geneva Bible of the Reformed faith and the Schmalkald Articles of the Lutheran churches affirm it.

Geoffrey W. Bromiley in his article, “Mary the Mother of Jesus” in International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: K-P (edited by Bromiley, revised edition of 1994 published by Eerdmans [Grand Rapids, Michigan], p. 269), wrote:

The post-partum or perpetual virginity concept is held by some Protestants and was held by many Reformers (e.g., Calvin in his sermon on Mt. 1:22-25) . . .

Note that this refers to the sermon I cited above, not just Calvin’s Commentaries. And this is from the revised ISBE: not a source one can easily dismiss.

Derek W. H. Thomas, writing in A Theological Guide to Calvin’s Institutes: Essays and Analysis (edited by David W. Hall & Peter A. Lillback; Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing [Calvin 500 series]: 2008, p. 212), makes a casual reference: “a perpetual virgin in Calvin’s view!”

He is a professor of systematic and pastoral theology at Reformed Theological Seminary. His doctoral dissertation was devoted to Calvin’s preaching on the book of Job.

Timothy George concurs, with slight qualification:

To be sure, there is nothing theologically problematic about affirming Mary’s perpetual virginity. This venerable tradition, first given dogmatic sanction at the Fifth Ecumenical Council in 553, was affirmed by Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin during the Reformation, though Calvin was more agnostic about this belief than the other two reformers. (in Mary, Mother of God, edited by Carl E. Braaten and Robert W. Jenson, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Pub. Co.: 2004; p. 109)

Dr. George is the dean of Beeson Divinity School at Samford University, teaches Church history and serves as executive editor for Christianity Today. He has served on the Board of Directors of the Southern Baptist Convention, has written more than twenty books, and regularly contributes to scholarly journals. His book Theology of the Reformers is used as a textbook in many schools and seminaries.

J. A. Ross MacKenzie wrote: “Calvin, like Luther and Zwingli, taught the perpetual virginity of Mary” (in Alberic Stacpoole, editor, Mary’s Place in Christian Dialogue, Wilton, Connecticut: Morehouse-Barlow, 1982, 35-36). Dr. Mackenzie was a professor of church history at Union Theological Seminary in Virginia, and has translated or written more than twenty theological books.

Robert H. Stein, professor of New Testament interpretation at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, also agrees:

If one believes in the perpetual virginity of Mary, a teaching held not only by Roman Catholicism but also by Greek Orthodoxy, Martin Luther, and John Calvin, then the Helvidian view must be rejected. (Mark [Commentary], Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic: 2008, p. 187)

Calvin’s successor Theodore Beza argued that Catholics and Protestants agreed on the perpetual virginity of Mary, at the Colloquy of Poissy in 1561 (see William A. Dyrness, Reformed Theology and Visual Culture: the Protestant Imagination from Calvin to Edwards, [Cambridge University Press, 2004], pp. 86-87). Here are some other Calvin utterances on the topic:

Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ’s “brothers” are sometimes mentioned. (Harmony of Matthew, Mark and Luke, sec. 39 [Geneva, 1562], vol. 2 / From Calvin’s Commentaries, translated by William Pringle, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1949, p.215; on Matthew 13:55)

[On Matt 1:25:] The inference he [Helvidius] 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 . . . No just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words . . . 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 . . . What took place afterwards the historian does not inform us . . . No man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation. (Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 107)

John Calvin’s comment on the text quoted by the Catholic apologists’ source also does not suggest that he defended perpetual virginity. Calvin’s text in this part seems to be more cautious, however, we learn from him that the Marian dogma of perpetual virginity was not unanimous among the church fathers, since he cites Helvidius as not defending this thesis, and Jerome, at a later period, disagreeing with Helvidius.

Under the word “brethren” the Hebrews include all cousins and other relations, whatever may be the degree of affinity. (Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 283 / Commentary on John, [7:3] )

Also, Calvin habitually calling Mary “the virgin” or “holy virgin” (as Calvin scholar T.H.L. Parker noted), is further evidence, since that had always been understood in Church history (I’m pretty sure) as a belief in perpetual virginity, and was clearly understood as such in Calvin’s time. Examples:

Institutes of the Christian Religion

*

II, 10:4 . . . the blessed Virgin . . . [footnote: “Beata Virgo.” French, “la Vierge Marie;”—the Virgin Mary]

II, 13:3 . . . being descended of the Virgin; . . . nourished to maturity in the Virgin’s womb. . . . Matthew does not here describe the Virgin . . .

II, 13:4 . . . conceived miraculously in the Virgin’s womb . . .

II, 14:1 . . . he made choice of the Virgin’s womb as a temple in which he might dwell.

II, 14:4 . . . the name of the Son of God is given to him who is born of a Virgin, and the Virgin herself is called the mother of our Lord (Luke 1:32, 43).

II, 14:5 . . . he was begotten in the womb of the Virgin by the Holy Spirit. . . . We indeed acknowledge that the Mediator who was born of the Virgin is properly the Son of God.

II, 14:6 . . . He who was born of a Virgin, . . .

II, 14:8 . . . he was conceived in the womb of the Virgin by the Holy Spirit . . .

*

Harmony of the Gospels

*

Matthew 1:18 . . . the virgin . . .

Matthew 1:19 . . . the virgin . . .

Matthew 1:22 . . . the virgin . . . [twice]

Matthew 1:23 . . . the virgin . . .

Matthew 2:16 . . . the virgin . . .

Matthew 5:6 . . . the Virgin . . .

Luke 1:26 . . . the virgin . . .

Luke 1:28 . . . the virgin . . .

Luke 1:30 The holy virgin . . .

Luke 1:31 . . . the virgin . . . [twice]

Luke 1:32 . . . the holy virgin . . .

Luke 1:34 The holy virgin appears to confine the power of God . . . the mind of the virgin,. . . the holy virgin . . . the virgin . . . the virgin . . . [Calvin in the same section denies that this passage suggests a vow of perpetual virginity made by Mary]

Luke 1:35 He only leads the virgin . . .

Luke 1:36 . . . the mother of the holy virgin . . .

Luke 1:38 . . . the holy virgin . . . [three times]

Luke 1:39 . . . the Virgin . . .

Luke 1:46 . . . the holy virgin . . . [twice]

Luke 1:48 . . . the holy virgin . . .

Luke 1:49 . . . the holy virgin . . .

Luke 2:34 The holy virgin . . .

Luke 2:35. . . the holy virgin . . .

Luke 2:48 . . . the holy virgin . . . [twice]

This is not simply referring to the virgin birth. Think about it. We don’t call women who are married now and sexually active, “virgins” their whole lives and thereafter. That would make no sense, since they ceased being virgins. It is as illogical as calling them “children” when they are adults. They’re not lifetime eunuchs or celibates or virgins. They were simply one thing and then another, by virtue of getting older and passing into the state of marriage. They did not have the gift of celibacy that Calvin acknowledged, per clear Pauline teaching.

Calvin didn’t even use the phraseology of Theotokos [“Mother of God”] (as Luther and many other Protestants — even in some confessions — did), so I think that if he continued to use “holy virgin” that it is more plausible to believe that he retained the traditional view than that he did not. Otherwise, it stands to reason that he would cease using that title for her, too, since he was well familiar with historical usage and patristic teachings. Therefore this is another relevant evidence of Calvin’s position, by both linguistic and commonsense criteria, and it’s direct.

Not satisfied, I did some research on what John Calvin thought on the matter, and look at Calvin’s opinion, in Luke 1:34, Calvin comments:

The conjecture which some have drawn from these words, that she had formed a vow of perpetual virginity, is UNFOUNDED and COMPLETELY ABSURD. She would, in that case, have committed treason, allowing herself to be joined to her husband, and would have poured contempt on the sacred covenant of marriage; which could not have been done without scorning God. Though the Papists exercised a barbarous tyranny on this subject, they never went so far as to permit the wife to form a vow of continence at her own pleasure. Furthermore, it is an idle and unfounded assumption that a monastic life existed among the Jews.

Now, at first glance, the evidence from this comment did seem fairly compelling against my stated position. But I knew (because I had documented it previously) that many Calvinist scholars and other Protestant experts on Calvin agree that he did accept the perpetual virginity, and so I wondered why that is, and I started digging for more information. I found another related citation, that I think affirms what I and others have been arguing, lo, these many years. [the one at the top, from a 1562 sermon]

Moreover, it wasn’t a question of corrupting marriage, since for Calvin, they never lived together and thus were not “united.” Thus, the difficulty for the belief that he held to the perpetual virginity of Mary, suggested prima facie by his comment on Luke 1:34 vanishes. For Calvin, both things are true: Mary didn’t make such a vow and they didn’t live together in a chaste fashion, since he thinks they didn’t live together at all.

Another internal argument based on Calvin’s own commentaries can be produced. I alluded to it in on page 60 of my 2010 book, “The Catholic Mary”: Quite Contrary to the Bible? In his Harmony of the Gospels (Vol. II, p. 65; “translated from the original Latin and collated with the author’s French version, by William Pringle), Calvin is commenting on Luke 8:19 (“And his mother and his brethren came to him”), and casually mentions that the parallel passages of “the other two Evangelists . . . represent Christ’s mother and cousins as having come . . .” (my italics). The other two passages are the following (RSV):

Matthew 12:46 While he was still speaking to the people, behold, his mother and his brothers stood outside, asking to speak to him.

Mark 3:31 And his mother and his brothers came; and standing outside they sent to him and called him.

This is fascinating. Calvin is not being neutral or agnostic here at all, as to the specific meaning of adelphos in these instances. He has taken a definite position: it means “cousins.” He believes that Jesus doesn’t have siblings and that these instances of adelphos / adelphe / “brothers” / “brethren” do not prove otherwise (as countless contrary arguments against perpetual virginity falsely assume is the case). Calvin adopted the classic “cousins” theory as to the meaning of “Jesus’ brothers” in Scripture (which is the usual view that Catholic commentators take).

Nor is there any hint of “waffling” on Calvin’s part, as far as I can tell, in all of this information, taken together. My take is a perfectly plausible and self-consistent explanation for all of it, in line with what the Calvin scholars also say: he believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary. He didn’t “waffle” on it; he didn’t appear to change his view over time, He simply wasn’t quite as explicit as Luther and others were, on this question. It requires a little digging to ascertain his position (which I have done).

I also don’t think that Calvin was “neutral” or “agnostic” regarding Matthew 1:25 and the notorious “until” argument of those who deny perpetual virginity. That text neither asserts nor denies perpetual virginity in and of itself. That far, we all agree, I think. What detractors of the doctrine do is insinuate that “until” implies sexual activity on Mary’s part after the birth of Jesus. Calvin firmly responds that it does no such thing. He shoots down this very common argument, made by Protestants all the time today. He responds precisely as a Catholic apologist would: arguing that the text doesn’t in any fashion prove what it is claimed that it supposedly proves.

To me, that is not an agnostic or uncommitted position at all. It is in favor of perpetual virginity (or if we want to nitpick) totally consistent with it, and inconsistent with one of the most common biblical arguments made against it. The “brothers” argument is the other most common (and thoroughly fallacious) argument made. Calvin points out that the word doesn’t have to always mean “siblings.” He’s exactly right.

But if that sounds neutral or agnostic at his commentary on Matthew 13:55, it ain’t when he comments on Luke 8:19 (and also on Mathew and Mark) and says that the meaning of “brothers” in the parallel passages is “cousins”. He is no longer neutral or undecided or uncommitted or agnostic. He has taken a position. And it is exactly what we would expect him to argue, if indeed he holds to the perpetual virginity of Mary, as I believe he did. Furthermore, the 1562 sermon explained how Calvin’s objection to a vow of virginity did not mean he denied the perpetual virginity of Mary.

In another instance of Calvin interpreting a “brother of Jesus” as a cousin, we have his commentary on Galatians 1:19 (“But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother.”):

Except James. Who this James was, deserves inquiry. Almost all the ancients are agreed that he was one of the disciples, whose surname was “Oblias” and “The Just,” and that he presided over the church at Jerusalem. (33) Yet others think that he was the son of Joseph by another wife, and others (which is more probable) that he was the cousin of Christ by the mother’s side: (34) but as he is here mentioned among the apostles, I do not hold that opinion. Nor is there any force in the defense offered by Jerome, that the word Apostle is sometimes applied to others besides the twelve; for the subject under consideration is the highest rank of apostleship, and we shall presently see that he was considered one of the chief pillars. (Galatians 2:9.) It appears to me, therefore, far more probable, that the person of whom he is speaking is the son of Alpheus. (35)

Footnote 35 elaborates:

This is fully consistent with the opinion commonly held, that Alpheus or Cleopas was the husband of the sister of Mary, the mother of our Lord, and consequently that James, the son of Alpheus, was our Lord’s cousin-german.

All of this is perfectly consistent with, if not direct evidence of, Calvin’s belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary.

I then went searching for the 1562 sermon in question. I had an idea where it might be found, and wrote in one thread:

I think the sermon would likely be part of the Corpus Reformatorum, since volumes 29-87 are devoted to his works. It’s in Latin (unless some stuff is French). We just have to figure out what volume it’s in. Many volumes are available in Google Books.

I started looking through online volumes; went to the index volume and found “Sermons on the Nativity” in Volume 46. I then wrote:

I’m almost certain I found it. Go to this link and download the pdf of vol. 46 (“Tome 46”) of the Corpus Reformatorum. It’s called “Sermon 22” on the Harmony of the Gospels, dealing with Matthew 1:22-25, and runs from pp. 259-272. It’s in French.

I did that, and cut-and-pasted the entire sermon. Google and Babylon translation pages revealed that it was indeed the sermon in question, based on a comparison to the Thurian version (above). I then posted it on a separate web page, and asked on Facebook if anyone could translate the last portion of it. Gregory Fast did so. Here is his translation of the key portion of this sermon:

Certainly, it is said that he did not know the Virgin until she gave birth to her first Son. By this, the Evangelist means to signify that Joseph did not take his wife to live with him, but in obedience to God and to discharge his duty towards Him. It was not then to be carnal love, nor to take advantage of the situation, or any reason at all, that he took his wife, but it was to obey God, and to accept the grace he had been offered: as that was a blessing beyond estimation.

See, that is what we have to remember. But there were some crazy people who wanted to gather from this passage that the Virgin Mary had had other children than the Son of God, after Joseph had lived with her, but it is foolish to think that because the Evangelist would not recite what happened afterwards: he only wants to declare the obedience of Joseph, and how he showed a well-certified tenderness in that God sent his angel to him.

[Google Translate: “But there have been some, fantastic who wanted to gather from this passage that the Virgin Mary had other children than the Son of God, and that Joseph had then afterwards dwelt with her: but that is madness.”]

He never lived with her. He never had her company. And there we see that [he] took no regard for himself because he was deprived of a woman. He could have married another, but he could not swear off the woman he had engaged. But better he leave his beloved rights and abstain from marriage (even though all the while he was married), he preferred to remain so as to employ the service of God, while watching what came over him through his agreement.

He forgot all these things in order to submit fully to God. And in the rest (of the account) of our Lord Jesus Christ, he is called the first born; there was not a second, nor a third, but the Evangelist looks only to the first. And Scripture speaks thus of naming the first born, again that there may be no second.

So we see the intention of the Holy Ghost: and yet we must abandon these crazy subtleties; it would be abuse of the holy Scripture, to us a not even useful edification, as St. Paul says.

And besides, when men are like fretillans, and they have the ticklish ears to listen to speculative news, it is necessary that the devil has done so they may harden, and we seek the right way, and they disturb rather than have the sky and land, they maintain their mistakes and dreams with diabolical obstinacy, especially all the more must we strive to be sober to receive the doctrine given to us to accept the Redeemer to us from God the Father, being knowledgeable and virtuous, we learn from this to keep us fully to him as we prostrate ourselves before the majesty of our good God, etc.

Also in Matthew 1:18, the Reformer comments:

The phrase employed by the Evangelist, ‘before they cohabited,’ is a modest appellation for the conjugal relationship, or simply means ‘before they came to dwell together as husband and wife, Forming a home and a family.

As we have seen, Calvin clearly rejects the interpretation that Mary is a virgin always a virgin, which leads us to the conclusion that the source they use is false, and so we will defend it until they show us the primary source of this quote that they use so much in several websites. . . .

We conclude that the arguments of Catholic apologists lack solidity, since it is a secondary source, and John Calvin himself totally contradicts what is said in it. If this argument is used again, I consent that the brothers demand the primary source (ask for the pdf or link or even the photo of the book that contains the sermon) of the quote presented by the Catholic apologist and then present Calvin’s thought on the subject.

I produced the primary source, and as far as I am concerned, it’s decisive in showing that Calvin believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary in 1562: two years before his death. What has been translated is compelling. It would be very difficult to synthesize it with a view that he denied the perpetual virginity of Mary.

I used Google Translate to see if I could find any more “clues” in it. I gave up looking through the whole thing, since it was so long, but I added one alternate reading to the Fast translation above.

***

Photo credit: Annunciation (c. 1489), by Pietro Perugino (1448-1523) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Summary: Brazilian Calvinist apologist Francisco Tourinho demanded the primary source for a 1562 sermon by Calvin on Matthew 1:22-25. I produced it (in 2014), and it’s decisive.

Anti-Perpetual Virginity Arguments Debunked (vs. J. Engwer)

November 7, 2021 By Dave Armstrong

Jason Engwer is a Protestant and anti-Catholic apologist, who runs the Tribalblogue site. I will be responding to his article, Are Jesus’ Siblings Children From Joseph’s Previous Marriage? (1-8-17). His words will be in blue.

*****

One of the most important concepts to focus on when thinking about this issue is what other options were available to the authors in question. What other language could they have used? For example, Luke refers to Jesus as Mary’s “firstborn” (2:7), even though elsewhere he uses a different term for “only born” (7:12, 9:38).

The Protestant Hastings Bible Dictionary (“Brethren of the Lord [2]”) offers the reply:

πρωτότοκος [prototokos / firstborn] among the Jews was a technical term, meaning ‘that which openeth the womb’ (Exodus 34:19 ff.), and does not imply the birth of other offspring. . . . Dr. Mayor objects that in a purely historical passage, like Luke 2:7, this technical meaning is not to be thought of; but the subsequent statement ‘they brought him up to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord, as it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord’ (Luke 2:22-23), renders it certain that it was precisely this which was in the Evangelist’s mind when he called Jesus πρωτότοκον (so already Jerome, l.c. x.).

Why would Luke use a term that seems to contradict Mary’s perpetual virginity when he was aware of an alternative term that’s consistent with perpetual virginity and uses it elsewhere in his gospel?

It’s explained above: precisely because this was common Jewish / OT usage and didn’t imply in and of itself further children being born of the same mother; only that there were no previous children.

Similarly, why does Luke differentiate between “brothers” and “relatives” in 21:16 if there’s no significant difference between the two?

Luke 21:16 (RSV) You will be delivered up even by parents and brothers and kinsmen and friends, and some of you they will put to death;

“Brothers” in this verse is adelphos, which can refer to siblings (as well as a wide range of other relatives), and may very well be Jesus’ meaning in this verse. “Kinsmen” here is the Greek sungenis (Strong’s word #4773) and has solely a wider application of “relative.” Hence, the KJV never translates it as “brother” but rather, as follows, in 12 appearances: kinsman (7), cousin (2), kinsfolk (2), and kin (1). There is a difference between the two in that sungenis is always referring to the wider application, whereas adelphos can also include the meaning of siblings. Context and previous cultural usage is usually the determinant of more precise intended meanings.

In the same way, why does Hegesippus refer to Symeon as Jesus’ “cousin” (in Eusebius, Church History, 4:22:4), yet refer to James as Jesus’ “brother” (ibid., 2:23:4) and Jude as Jesus’ “brother according to the flesh” (ibid., 3:20:1)?

I just explained it. “Brother” / adelphos can have a wider application of meaning beyond sibling. Thus, there is no need to explain the above as a supposed “discrepancy.” He simply chose different words, which is perfectly kosher and not unexpected.

We see this over and over again with the earliest sources.

Yes; they use different words for stuff (sometimes for the same thing), just as we do today! Languages are very rich. They don’t have only one word for any given thing.

They not only use language that seems to contradict the perpetual virginity of Mary, but even use different language elsewhere that’s consistent with perpetual virginity, which they could have used in the passages relevant to Mary….

There is no contradiction to the perpetual virginity of Mary, once all the words are correctly understood as to latitude of possible meanings. It’s only Jason’s and later Protestantism’s false linguistic and theological premises that bring about supposed “confusion” and “contra-indications” in the traditional view of Mary’s perpetual virginity, which continued to be held by all the major leading figures of the initial Protestant Revolt in the 16th century.

Theological liberalism from two centuries later introduced this false doctrine into Protestantism. But many Protestants continue to oppose these liberal innovations and novelties to this day.

There are also similar sorts of “why didn’t they use these terms?” arguments that support perpetual virginity. For example, Jesus’ “brethren” in Scripture are never called the children of Mary, and Mary is never called their mother, as in the case of Jesus:

John 2:1 On the third day there was a marriage at Cana in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there;

John 19:25 . . . standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Mag’dalene.

In at least two instances, these “brothers” were mentioned but Mary wasn’t called their mother; only Jesus‘ mother:

Acts 1:14 All these with one accord devoted themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers.

Mark 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?” . . .

Doesn’t it stand to reason and common sense that if these “brothers” were indeed the siblings of Jesus, that Acts 1:14 would read, instead: “Mary the mother of Jesus and his brothers”? Then we wouldn’t be having this dispute; it would have been so clear and undeniable. A similar argument could be made for Mark 6:3. But instead, we have Jesus only being called “the son of Mary” there, while “son of Mary” referring to someone besides Jesus, or the phrase “sons of Mary” never appear in Holy Scripture.

***

I respond below to a portion of another article, Agreement Between Matthew And Luke About Jesus’ Childhood (11-30-13):

*****

Jesus had siblings (Matthew 1:25, 12:46-50, 13:55-56, Luke 2:7, 8:19, Acts 1:14), though they apparently weren’t born until after the passages in the infancy narratives mentioned above.

The biblical data is not conclusive in terms of asserting that Jesus had siblings (defined as brothers and sisters who were also the offspring of Mary). As I have shown in many papers (linked below), adelphos (“brother”) has a wide range of meaning; and various exegetical arguments (as well as arguments from early Christian tradition) show fairly clearly that those cited as Jesus’ “brothers” were not His siblings. Above, Jason merely assumes that adelphos means “sibling.” It can mean that (just as is the case with “brother” in English), but it can also mean many other things; thus context and cross-referencing (and Catholics would add: constant sacred tradition and Church teaching from the beginning) are crucial to determine which meaning applies.

There were no children of Joseph from a previous marriage or other siblings of Jesus during the earliest period of his childhood. Since Matthew and Luke claim that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was conceived, they probably would have offered an explanation of where Jesus’ older siblings came from if there were such siblings to account for. No such explanation is offered.

Obviously, since Mary was a virgin when Jesus was born (and Jason and virtually all traditional Protestants agree with the virgin birth), He had no older siblings in the strictest sense of the word (from the same mother). If we assume the meaning of half-brothers and half-sisters (offspring of Joseph from a previous marriage), then that could or would be the case (as Eastern Catholicism and Orthodoxy generally hold). But then this has no bearing on whether Mary was a perpetual virgin or not.

I deny that the Gospel writers would “probably” explain the existence of these half-brothers and half-sisters, if indeed this was the case. It has nothing to do with the narrative and I don’t see any basis for Jason making such a claim of likelihood. What would it be? Even if we accept Jason’s scenario for the sake of argument, and this disproves the “half-brothers” position (though it would be a weak argument from silence, if so), it still doesn’t touch the “first or more distant cousins or relatives” opinion of western Catholicism: held by many more Christians than the other view. Many of Jason’s contra-Catholic arguments (especially regarding the Blessed Virgin Mary) are of this highly speculative nature, rather than being indubitable conclusions from biblical texts.

Though the opening chapters of Matthew and Luke say a lot about Jesus’ family and their travels, for example, no siblings of Jesus are mentioned. Rather, the family is repeatedly described by mentioning Joseph, Mary, and Jesus (Matthew 2:13-14, 2:19-21, Luke 2:4-5, 2:16). One or more of the three is mentioned many times in the infancy narratives, but no sibling is mentioned aside from the allusion by means of “firstborn” in Luke 2:7.

Again, this might be construed as an argument against the “previous marriage and children of Joseph” position, but if so it is only a weak objection, and doesn’t touch the other (much more exegetically based) “cousins” view. In Jewish culture (as shown above), “firstborn” simply had no inherent or necessary meaning of “first of many”.

***

Why Believe in Mary’s Perpetual Virginity? [2-28-04]

James the Lord’s “Brother” (i.e., Cousin) + Who Wrote the Book of James? [11-6-08]

Jesus’ “Brothers” Always “Hangin’ Around” Mary … (Doesn’t This Prove That They Are Actually His Siblings?) [8-31-09]

Biblical Arguments for Mary’s Perpetual Virginity [2015]

“Holy Ground” & Mary’s Perpetual Virginity [5-24-16]

Biblical Evidence for the Perpetual Virginity of Mary [National Catholic Register, 4-13-18]
*

More Biblical Evidence for Mary’s Perpetual Virginity [National Catholic Register, 4-25-18]
*

A Defense of the Virgin Birth Against a “Bible-bashing” Atheist [The Catholic World Report, 12-24-19]

Mary’s Perpetual Virginity: Bombshell from Matthew 1:25 [4-3-20; rev. 6-17-20]

Jason Engwer, Hippolytus, & Mary’s Perpetual Virginity [10-17-20]

Jesus’ “Brothers” (Not Siblings) 0101: vs. Jason Engwer (The Actual Biblical Data Brought to Bear, Rather Than Late (Post-Luther and Post-Calvin) Protestant Traditions of Men) [9-23-21]

***

Practical Matters: if any of my 3,850+ free online articles and 50 books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them, and/or if you believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. 1 December 2021 will be my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist.

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: apologistdave@gmail.com. “Catholic Used Book Service” (which might be mentioned in conjunction with my address on PayPal) is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

***

Photo credit: The Madonna in Sorrow, by Giovanni Battista Salvi da Sassoferrato (1609 – 1685) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Summary: Some of the endless (lousy, fallacious) arguments from Protestant anti-Catholic apologist Jason Engwer against the perpetual virginity of Mary are refuted.

Jason Engwer, Hippolytus, & Mary’s Perpetual Virginity

October 17, 2020 By Dave Armstrong

Protestant apologist Jason Engwer wrote:

Tertullian and Helvidius are often named as early opponents of Mary’s perpetual virginity, but other opponents of the concept seem to be mentioned less often. . . . What I want to do in this post is cite some other examples.

In the West before Hilary – that is, up to the middle of the fourth century – there is no witness at all for the ‘semper virgo’ [perpetual virginity]; and that can hardly be a mere chance: see pp. 72 f. below. Hippolytus, too, regards the ‘brothers of Jesus’ as the children of Joseph and Mary… [apparently quoting Hippolytus:] ‘He [Jesus] did [not] acknowledge as brothers those who were regarded as his brothers according to the body; the Redeemer did not acknowledge them, because in truth those [were] not his brothers who were born from Joseph through seed, but he from the Virgin and the Holy Spirit; and they regarded them as his brothers, but he did not acknowledge them.’ (Hans von Campenhausen, The Virgin Birth In The Theology Of The Ancient Church [Eugene, Oregon: Wipf & Stock, 2011], n. 4 on 48-9)

. . . what should we conclude from the English translation he provides of that one passage?

If the brothers were “born from Joseph through seed”, then Hippolytus at least believed they were children of Joseph from a former marriage, thus differing from the more popular view that they were cousins of Jesus or some other more distant type of relatives. But was he denying Mary’s perpetual virginity?

Probably. To reconcile the passage with perpetual virginity, I think we’d have to take a few problematic steps. We’d have to assume a prior marriage of Joseph, which would be an unusual scenario and one not implied by the text. Second, if the relatives of Jesus in question were regarded as “brothers” without further qualification, the most natural way to take that term is as a reference to individuals with a biological relationship with both Joseph and Mary. If the individuals were all older than Jesus and older than Joseph’s marriage to Mary, having been born during a former marriage, it’s highly doubtful that they’d all be mistaken for biological offspring of Joseph and Mary. Third, we’d have to assume that Hippolytus failed to mention the first wife of Joseph (by description or name), even though mentioning her would have strengthened his point (by putting even more distance between Jesus and the brothers).

Why, then, does Hippolytus say that the individuals in question were “regarded” as brothers of Jesus? He can’t be denying that they were brothers in any sense. Even in a perpetual virginity scenario involving children from a former marriage of Joseph, the individuals in question would be brothers in a legal context. So, all that Hippolytus seems to be getting at by using the “regarded” qualifier is that the men weren’t brothers in the fullest sense, even though they were thought of that way. That would be true regardless of whether Mary was a perpetual virgin, so it’s an irrelevant issue. (“More Early Opponents Of Mary’s Perpetual Virginity”: Tribalblogue, 11-27-14)

This is classic Engwer polemics: take a dubious proposed “proof” of an assertion he already holds and obfuscate, engage in obscurantism and sophism, special plead, create as much doubt and confusion as possible, as to the traditional Catholic interpretation, and hope that readers (most of whom already agree with him) will be persuaded by such nefarious methods. In this instance, he seems to be aware of how weak and speculative a “proof” he is working with: leading to an excessive amount of special pleading (even by his low standards of research).

Yet, rather than admit as much, he digs in and gives it all he has to try to make his long shot position work. It’s all in vain, because St. Hippolytus (c. 170 – 235) elsewhere calls Mary ever-virgin, which is a definitive indication that she had no other children. Case closed. Thus, much ado about nothing, trying to make this “square peg” passage fit into the “square hole” of Mary’s perpetual virginity. If Jason had spent another ten minutes searching “Hippolytus, perpetual virginity” he could have save himself the embarrassment of trying to make a hopeless argument. But he didn’t, and so I had to write this paper and set the record straight.

Hippolytus wrote, c. 210:

But the pious confession of the believer is that, with a view to our salvation, and in order to connect the universe with unchangeableness, the Creator of all things incorporated with Himself a rational soul and a sensible body from the all-holy Mary, ever-virgin, by an undefiled conception, without conversion, and was made man in nature, but separate from wickedness: the same was perfect God, and the same was perfect man; the same was in nature at once perfect God and man. (Against Beron and Helix, Frag VIII; my bolding)

Likewise, The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Volume 12 (“Virgin Birth”), reinforces this view with regard to St. Hippolytus and also St. Clement of Alexandria (c. 150 – c. 215), and Origen (c. 184 – c. 253):

Clement of Alexandria taught unequivocally the virgin birth—the only virgin mother (Pædagogus, i. 6)—and appears inclined to the notion of a miraculous birth as well as a miraculous conception (Strom., vii, 16; Eng. transl. in ANF, vol. ii.). . . .

This doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary was advanced a further stage by Origen, whose principal discussion of the virgin birth appears in reply to Celsus, who had assailed this doctrine. . . .

Hippolytus maintained the perfect purity and perpetual virginity of Mary (Adv. Veronem), . . .

The great Protestant scholar J. B. Lightfoot explained what the early Church believed about the perpetual virginity of Mary, in his work, Dissertations on the Apostolic Age (1892; section: “The Brethren of the Lord”):

In the early ages of the Church two conflicting opinions were held regarding the relationship of those who in the Gospels and Apostolic Epistles are termed ‘the brethren of the Lord.’ On the one hand it was maintained that no blood relationship existed; that these brethren were in fact sons of Joseph by a former wife, before he espoused the Virgin; and that they are therefore called the Lord’s brethren only in the same way in which Joseph is called His father, having really no claim to this title but being so designated by an exceptional use of the term adapted to the exceptional fact of the miraculous incarnation. On the other hand certain persons argued that the obvious meaning of the term was the correct meaning, and that these brethren were the Lord’s brethren as truly as Mary was the Lord’s mother, being her sons by her husband Joseph. The former of these views was held by the vast majority of orthodox believers and by not a few heretics; the latter was the opinion of a father of the Church here and there to whom it occurred as the natural inference from the language of Scripture, as Tertullian for instance, and of certain sects and individuals who set themselves against the incipient worship of the Virgin or the one-sided asceticism of the day, and to whom therefore it was a very serviceable weapon of controversy. . . .

Thus it would appear that, taking the scriptural notices alone, the Hieronymian account [that the “brethren” were cousins of Jesus] must be abandoned; while of the remaining two the balance of the argument is against the Helvidian [the “brethren” were literal siblings or blood brothers] and in favour of the Epiphanian [they were sons of a former marriage of Joseph]. To what extent the last-mentioned theory can plead the prestige of tradition, will be seen from the following catena of references to the fathers and other early Christian writings. . . .

[T]he testimony of Hegesippus [c. 110 – c. 180] . . . favours the Epiphanian rather than the Helvidian [view]. . . .

Origen [c. 184 – c. 253]. . . declares himself very distinctly in favour of the Epiphanian view, stating that the brethren were sons of Joseph by a deceased wife. . . .

In one passage he [Origen] writes at some length on the subject; ‘Some persons, on the ground of a tradition in the Gospel according to Peter, as it is entitled, or the Book of James (i.e. the Protevangelium), say that the brothers of Jesus were Joseph’s sons by a former wife to whom he was married before Mary. Those who hold this view wish to preserve the honour of Mary in virginity throughout… And I think it reasonable that as Jesus was the first-fruit of purity and chastity among men, so Mary was among women: for it is not seemly to ascribe the first-fruit of virginity to any other woman but her’ (in Matt. xiii. 55, III. p. 462)’. This passage shows not only that Origen himself favoured the Epiphanian view which elsewhere he has directly maintained, but that he was wholly unaware of the Hieronymian, . . . (pp. 3-4, 25, 31, 34-35)

Jason will have to go back and revise his research, if he wishes to claim Hippolytus (or any of the other fathers above, save the eventual heretic Tertullian) for his heretical and unbiblical (and also anti-Protestant “Reformers”) view of the “brothers of Jesus” allegedly being His blood brothers and sons (younger brothers and/or sisters) of the Blessed Virgin Mary also.

***

Photo credit: The Madonna in Sorrow, by Giovanni Battista Salvi da Sassoferrato (1609 – 1685) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Mary’s Perpetual Virginity: Bombshell from Matthew 1:25

June 17, 2020 By Dave Armstrong

Matthew 1:24-25 (NRSV) . . . Joseph . . . took her as his wife, [25] but had no marital relations with her [RSV: “knew her not”] until she had borne a son . . .

This would involve probably six months, bare minimum. We don’t know at what stage he was aware that she was pregnant. All we know is that it was after they were “betrothed” (Mt 1:18). The word “until” does not necessarily imply that Mary and Joseph had sex after Jesus was born, as is often argued. Even Calvin and Luther agree with the Catholic view of perpetual virginity and vigorously defend it. John Calvin wrote about the use of “until” in Matthew 1:25:

[On Matt 1:25:] The inference he [Helvidius] 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 . . . No just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words . . . 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 . . . What took place afterwards the historian does not inform us . . . No man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation. (Calvin’s Commentaries, translated by William Pringle, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1949, vol. I, 107)

Likewise, Martin Luther stated:

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. (Luther’s Works, vol. 45:206, 212-213 / That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew [1523] )

Scott Hahn, in his Ignatius Catholic Study Bible comments on the passage:

This conjunction is often used (translated “to” or “till”) to indicate a select period of time, without implying change in the future (2 Sam 6:23 [LXX]; Jn 9:18; 1 Tim 4:13).

But that is a side issue in relation to our present consideration (a “footnote diversion” if you will). Protestants who reject the perpetual virginity of Mary need to be asked why Joseph abstained for the entire pregnancy if in fact he had marital relations with the Blessed Virgin Mary after Jesus’ birth.

Rabbinic Judaism did not forbid sexual relations during the whole of pregnancy (especially not the final three months). I think we can safely assume that something of that sort was the custom of the Jews of Jesus’ time. So why did Joseph do this? There is no plausible reason to do so, other than the fact that he intended to never have relations with her (she being the Mother of God). Sometimes the most effective and elegant arguments are the small ones like this (that one could almost not notice at all).

Writing against Helvidius, St. Jerome provocatively asked (making precisely the present argument):

Why then did Joseph abstain at all up to the day of birth? He will surely answer, Because of the Angel’s words, “That which is born in her, &c.” He then who gave so much heed to a vision as not to dare to touch his wife, would he, after he had heard the shepherds, seen the Magi, and known so many miracles, dare to approach the temple of God, the seat of the Holy Ghost, the Mother of his Lord?

In conclusion, Jason Evert offers some great insights in an article for Catholic Answers Magazine (then called This Rock): 1 July 2000:

[E]ven in the Old Testament God asked married couples to refrain from intercourse for various reasons. For example, the priests of the temple had to refrain from intimacy with their wives during the time of their service. Likewise, Moses had the Israelites abstain from intercourse as he ascended Mount Sinai (Ex. 20:15 [Dave: should be 19:15]). There is a theme here of refraining from marital rights because of the presence of something very holy.

The Church Fathers knew that there was something greater than the temple in Mary’s womb, comparing it to the Eastern Gate mentioned in Ezekiel 44: “This gate shall remain shut; it shall not be opened, and no one shall enter by it; for the Lord, the God of Israel, has entered by it; therefore it shall remain shut.” Mary had become the dwelling place of the Almighty, like the Ark of the Covenant in the Old Testament. Now, if Uzzah was struck dead for touching the Ark (2 Sam. 6:6–8), should it be surprising that Joseph understood that Mary was a vessel consecrated to God alone? The idea that Joseph assumed normal marital relations with Mary after the birth of Christ was an irreverence that even the Protestant reformers rejected. . . .

[T]he angel told him to lead her into the house as a wife (paralambano gunaika), but the language that describes marital relations is not used here. It was used, however, in Luke 1:35: “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you.” To “overshadow” a woman was a euphemism for having a marital relationship, as was the phrase “to lay one’s power” over a woman. The Holy Spirit had espoused Mary, and she had been consecrated, set apart for God.

***

(originally 4-3-20 on Facebook; greatly expanded on 6-17-20)

Photo credit: The Annunciation (1644), by Philippe de Champaigne (1602-1674) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Reply to a Rationalist Objection to Mary’s Perpetual Virginity

January 29, 2020 By Dave Armstrong

Essay 41 (my original manuscript, with some differences) from my book, Proving the Catholic Faith is Biblical: From Priestly Celibacy to the Rosary: 80 Short Essays Explaining the Biblical Basis of Catholicism (July 2015)

*****

In Partu virginity is the belief that Jesus was born miraculously, without the usual physical travail of childbirth. Mary’s virginity was preserved in the biological sense: i.e., the hymen remained intact.

Virginity, as classically understood, is not simply the absence of sexual activity (how we use the term today). It also had a literal physiological component (intact hymen). That’s why, in order for the Blessed Virgin Mary to be a “perpetual virgin” in this sense, Jesus’ birth (like His conception) had to be supernatural rather than natural.

The whole thing is miraculous: conception; incarnation; in partu birth, though being in Mary’s womb for nine months obviously was “natural”. This is what the Catholic Church has taught.

A Catholic on another site described objections to this belief (in either agreement or perplexity over) and stated that it would render the placenta and umbilical cord irrelevant, making Mary’s pregnancy “appear as a fiction or myth or merely a play or a joke” and indeed, “comical.”

He thought the traditional Catholic view (which he thought entailed no implantation of the embryo in Mary’s uterus) was “rationally in-congruent and ridiculous.” He concluded that he wouldn’t be able to defend the Catholic dogma if someone asked him about it. The following was my (off-the-cuff) reply:

Why would you think you have to explain every objection to every miracle that is believed in Christianity? These factors are no more “ridiculous” than the virgin birth itself, if we are to rank levels of supposed “implausibility.”

This is a dogma. We believe in faith first; we don’t have to “solve every problem” before we believe. That’s not Christian faith, given by God’s grace, but man-centered rationalism.

There are always “difficulties” and “problems” in any large system of thought. That doesn’t prevent people from believing in the tenets of same. This includes physical science, where there are a host of things that remain unexplained (e.g., what caused the Big Bang; whether light is a particle or a wave, how life began, the complete lack of evidence for life anywhere else, etc.). People don’t disbelieve in the Big Bang because we can’t explain everything about it.

Likewise with Catholic dogma. If even science requires faith and axiomatic presuppositions, how much more, religious faith, which is not identical to philosophy or reason in the first place? God could, for example, have simply made the placenta and umbilical cord disappear when the time came to be born (it doesn’t mean they were never there or that there were no natural components). No biggie for Him: the One Who parted the Red Sea, created the universe, and performed a host of other miracles.

This is the same sort of inconsistent thinking and false premise that causes folks to reject the physical, substantial presence of our Lord Jesus in the Eucharist, and Doubting Thomas to disbelieve that Jesus had risen, or those who won’t believe unless they have some sign-miracle on demand.

All of this requires faith, and faith comes through grace accepted in free will. One can come up with any number of possible theories dealing with the placenta, etc., but I refuse to accept the premise that holds that we must do that in order to believe the dogma, and solving this “problem” is of little interest to me, even as an apologist. It’s pretty low on the list of priorities.

We’d all be in very rough shape if our personal “epistemology” required us to know every jot and tittle of everything before we could believe it. Most things we do or believe in life we don’t fully understand at all. One would have to argue that every miracle is “ridiculous” in this sense that is unable to be consistently sustained. God’s eternity and self-existence is absurd, creatio ex nihilo is, transubstantiation, Hypostatic Union, Resurrection; on and on it goes.

So why should a different, “super-standard” be applied to Christianity and particularly to Catholic dogma?

***

Mary’s Perpetual Virginity “In Partu” (a Miraculous, Non-Natural Childbirth) is a Binding Catholic Dogma (see also extensive Facebook discussion) [9-24-08; expanded on 9-21-15]

Catholics: “So Dogmatic About the Perpetual Virginity of Mary!” + Confessional Lutheran Agreement [11-1-08]

Virgin Birth & Perpetual Virginity: “Anti-Sex”? [5-21-14]

Mary Was a Virgin During Jesus’ Birth (In Partu) [9-19-14; slight modifications and additions on 4-18-18]

Catholic Virginity: “Anti-Sex” Viewpoint? [11-6-15]

Exchange on Miracles & Hyper-Rationalism [12-7-15]

“Holy Ground” & Mary’s Perpetual Virginity [5-24-16]

Perpetual Virginity: Not “Intuitive” But Still True (see also the vigorous discussion with a deist in the combox underneath) [4-13-18]
*

***

Unfortunately, Money Trees Do Not Exist: If you have been aided in any way by my work, or think it is valuable and worthwhile, please strongly consider financially supporting it (even $10 / month — a mere 33 cents a day — would be very helpful). I have been a full-time Catholic apologist since Dec. 2001, and have been writing Christian apologetics since 1981 (see my Resume). My work has been proven (by God’s grace alone) to be fruitful, in terms of changing lives (see the tangible evidences from unsolicited “testimonies”). I have to pay my bills like all of you: and have a (homeschooling) wife and three children still at home to provide for, and a mortgage to pay.

My book royalties from three bestsellers in the field (published in 2003-2007) have been decreasing, as has my overall income, making it increasingly difficult to make ends meet. I provide over 2600 free articles here, for the purpose of your edification and education, and have written 50 books. It’ll literally be a struggle to survive financially until Dec. 2020, when both my wife and I will be receiving Social Security. If you cannot contribute, I ask for your prayers (and “likes” and links and shares). Thanks!

See my information on how to donate (including 100% tax-deductible donations). It’s very simple to contribute to my apostolate via PayPal, if a tax deduction is not needed (my “business name” there is called “Catholic Used Book Service,” from my old bookselling days 17 or so years ago, but send to my email: apologistdave@gmail.com). Another easy way to send and receive money (with a bank account or a mobile phone) is through Zelle. Again, just send to my e-mail address. May God abundantly bless you.

***