Tomorrow I\u2019ll post my own view of Mary\u2019s perpetual virginity. But today we need to look at Jerome, who is perhaps the first major theologian to deal with our question \u2014 was Mary perpetually virgin? He does so in polemics with Helvidius, both of whom were in Rome at about the same time, c. 383 AD. Most of the whole debate today unfolds from his arguments with Helvidius. After today\u2019s post, I\u2019d be interested if this discussion has any impact on you. Tomorrow I\u2019ll post my own view of Mary\u2019s perpetual virginity. But today we need to look at Jerome, who is perhaps the first major theologian to deal with our question \u2014 was Mary perpetually virgin? He does so in polemics with Helvidius, both of whom were in Rome at about the same time, c. 383 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":197,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1708],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1417","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-mary"],"yoast_head":"\n
\nFirst, Jerome\u2019s style is overly accusatory and polemical.<\/strong> I\u2019ll give a few examples (all from Against Helvidius<\/em>), in part because of the fun of watching him bare his teeth.
\nHe says he\u2019s been asked to \u201crefute an ignorant boor\u201d but is \u201cafraid my reply might make him appear worth defeating.\u201d Yikes!
\n\u201cThe axe of the Gospel must therefore be now laid to the root of the barren<\/em> tree.\u201d Ouch!
\n\u201cHelvidius who has never learnt to speak, may at length learn to hold his tongue.\u201d
\nHe \u201cwaves his sword like a blind-folded gladiator, rattles his noisy tongue, and ends with wounding no one but himself.\u201d
\nOn his need to read the Bible, Jerome says \u201cit was here he stuck in the mud.\u201d
\nNow he gets more serious: Helvidius, he speaks to him directly, you \u201cemployed your madness in outraging the Virgin\u2026. You have set on fire the temple of the Lord\u2019s body, you have defiled the sanctuary of the Holy Spirit from which you are determined to make a team of four brethren and a heap of sisters come forth.\u201d
\nHe asks, \u201cPray tell me, who, before you appeared, was acquainted with this blasphemy? who thought the theory worth two-pence?\u201d
\nSecond, Jerome begins with four issues<\/strong> Helvidius uses to demonstrate that Mary had children as a result of sexual relations with Joseph:
\n1. The \u201cuntil\u201d of Matthew 1:25: he did not know her until<\/em>\u2026 Jerome contends that there are all kinds of biblical examples of the time of something \u201cuntil\u201d something does not imply a change of behavior after the \u201cuntil.\u201d Thus, \u201cLo, I am with you alway, even unto [until] the end of the earth.\u201d Does this, he asks, mean the Lord is not with us \u201cafter\u201d the end?
\n2. Joseph knew her not\u2026 Jerome\u2019s argument here has already been mentioned on this blog. How, he asks, could Joseph, who could not touch her before she gave birth, touch her after she gave birth to the All-holy Son of God?
\n3. On \u201cfirstborn,\u201d Jerome proves that \u201cfirstborn\u201d need not mean there were other births, for a firstborn could be an only begotten. His argument, that if \u201cfirstborn\u201d was only known when more were born means priests would have to wait until there were more born is rather empty in my logical bank, but still, his overall point is irrefutable.
\n4. Then he goes to \u201cbrothers\u201d and mounts his famous case. This word is used in four ways: by nature (James and John), by race (all Jews are brothers), by kindred (Abram and Lot), and by affection\/love (spiritual Christians).
\nWhich leads to this: are the \u201cbrothers\u201d of Jesus by nature (Helvidius), by race (obviously), by kindred\/nephews\/relatives (Jerome), or by love (only later). He argues the Jesus son of Joseph, say in G John, does not mean \u201cblood father\u201d so there is precedent in the family of Jesus for some \u201crelative\u201d family members.
\nHe asks who believed this before Helvidius: only two, Tertullian and Victorinus. Tertullian is dismissed as a heretic and not in the Church and therefore emptied of any authority, and Victorinus actually taught the brothers were relatives. On his side are Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, and many other \u201capostolic and eloquent men.\u201d
\nFinally, Jerome speaks of virginity and marriage, arguing the former is a holy state for some who are so called. (This was big for Jerome, and he was not without problems in these matters. He ended up in Bethlehem running a monastery for monks and nuns.)
\nHe says Mary was not married after she gave birth (21), and he also argues that Joseph was also perpetually virgin. He denies the Epiphanian view that Joseph was married previously.
\nJerome makes some very strong statements about the spirituality (don\u2019t know quite what term to use) of the married in comparison with that of virgins. They need not be detailed here for fear of some kind of uprising.
\nAt any rate, we have here the strongest case in the early church for Mary being perpetually virgin and for the \u201cbrothers and sisters\u201d of Jesus being relatives.<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"