To answer additional objections
I have received the following comment from a reader:
“Brother José, I have read on a Protestant blog a reply to your article on the virginity of Mary; I share it with you and would be grateful if you would tell me what you think.”
The blog in question objects:
|
The church of Rome affirms that Mary was a virgin after having come together with Joseph, although we see passages in the Scriptures that point to the contrary view, such as Matthew 1:25, which says: “But he did not have conjugal relations with her until she gave birth to a son, whom he named Jesus.” Catholic apologists say in this regard: “But here it is important to clarify that saying that he knew her not until does not mean that afterwards he did know her; it simply specifies nothing about afterwards. We must be honest with the Bible and not make it say what it does not say. Here the evangelist simply wants to emphasize and make quite clear that Jesus was born without the intervention of Joseph, and that he did not touch her until his birth, but at no point does he affirm that afterwards he did touch her.” José Miguel Arráiz It is then affirmed: “The word used here for until is the Greek word ‘EWS’ (until)… There are many passages where this same word is used which can illustrate to us that until does not imply a subsequent change of state” José Miguel Arráiz However, the problem with the Catholic assertion is that the passage of Matthew 1:25 says more; the text does not say only εως (until), but the construction is εως ου: “However, the expression ‘until’ used in Matthew 1:25 (in Greek a conjunction accompanied by an adverb) is found 19 times in the NT and always indicates, or clearly implies, a change in the condition after a point in time” Comentario Bíblico Mundo Hispano, Matthew, p. 49. Therefore the examples that José Miguel Arráiz shows in his article “To study the dogma of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary in depth” fall into error, since he only shows examples of εως but not of the case of Matthew, where it says εως ου, which, wherever it is found in the NT, implies the cessation of the clause that stands before εως. Janus |
Answer:
First of all, thank you for writing; I proceed to give you my opinion on the matter.
The word “ἕως” (until) is a preposition and adverb of continuation whose meaning does not change however much it may be joined to a conjunction. The word ου is there a conjunction because it makes it possible to link the first and the second clause.
To illustrate the point better, one must begin by understanding that a conjunction is the part of speech that serves to join two or more elements. The conjunction makes it possible to link sentences and establish a relationship between them.
In the case of Matthew 1:25 it links the fact that Joseph had no sexual relations with Mary and the fact of the birth of Jesus. The word “until” is used here to connect both facts and to affirm that the first event did not occur until the second was accomplished, without specifying anything about afterwards.
That this particular conjunction (ου) was used after ἕως likewise changes nothing in the very meaning of the word “until,” because neither “until” nor “until (that)” necessarily implies a subsequent change of state. Let us take an example:
“And Michal the daughter of Saul had no more children until the day of her death.” 2 Samuel 6:23
The above sentence could perfectly well have been expressed with other words including the conjunction “that” without necessarily expressing a subsequent change of state:
“And Michal the daughter of Saul had no more children until she died.” 2 Samuel 6:23
“And Michal the daughter of Saul had no more children until the day of her death came.” 2 Samuel 6:23
If these sentences had to be written in Greek, they could perfectly well use ἕως ου without implying that Michal had children after her death.
In the New Testament we find similar examples:
“For David himself said, moved by the Holy Spirit: The Lord said to my Lord: Sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet.” Mark 12:36
“And to which of the angels did he ever say: Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet?” Hebrews 1:13
In both examples the preposition “ἕως” is used followed by a conjunction, and no subsequent change of state is found there (unless one thinks that Jesus will no longer be at the right hand of the Father after his enemies are put under his feet).
Both in Mark 12:36 and in Hebrews 1:13 a similar expression is used, “ἕως αν” (also “until”); the difference lies simply in that αν refers to events that have not yet occurred and that are supposed, or likely, to happen in the future.
But whether “until” is used to refer to events of the past (as in the case of the example mentioned in 2 Samuel 6:23) or to refer to future events (Mark 12:36, Hebrews 1:13), its meaning goes no further than establishing the duration of the action specified in the main verb, without specifying what happens afterwards.
If you observe carefully, the whole Protestant argument rests solely on the claim that, since in other texts there is a subsequent change of state when εως ου is used, in Matthew 1:25 there must also be one. This is simply a crude attempt at generalization and would not prove that it is so in Matthew 1:25.
Another great flaw of this objection is that it completely ignores the use of the equivalent literal expression in Hebrew and Aramaic for εως ου throughout the Old Testament; a very complete explanation in this regard is given by Mariano Herranz Marco in his book “La Virginidad perpetua de María” (The Perpetual Virginity of Mary):
The compound particle εως ου is the literal translation of the Aramaic עד די.
…
This double particle appears especially in the passages of Daniel that form part of the presentation of the visions. We offer here two of them, “transferring” this particle literally:
Thou wast looking until (חָזֵה הֲוַיְתָ עַד דִּי) a stone was cut out, not by the work of (human) hands, and it struck the statue on its feet of iron and clay, and shattered them (2:34).
The first beast had teeth like a lion and had eagle’s wings. I was looking, until (חָזֵה הֲוַיְתָ עַד דִּי) its wings were plucked off, and it was lifted up from the earth and set upon its feet like a man, and a man’s heart was given to it (7:4).
In Daniel 7 there are two other texts in which the particle appears in a context of identical structure (7:9.11). In all these cases even a layman perceives that עד די is by no means a conjunction indicating the limit within which the action expressed by the verb we call principal is accomplished: the action of looking or seeing does not end when the vision arises; rather, the opposite occurs. That is why Bauer-Leander say of this double particle: “Special mention deserves the clause which in the book of Daniel is introduced by עד די, because here this conjunction has totally lost its value as a particle introducing a subordinate clause, and serves solely to introduce a new event” (H. Bauer-P. Leander, Grammatik des Biblisch-Aramäischen, Halle-Saale 1927 (repr. Hildesheim-New York 1969), 250.286f.).
This, which is evident from a simple reading of the texts cited, receives precious corroboration in other passages of the same book, in which we have the same compound phrase within a strictly parallel literary context: the presentation of visions. But in these cases the conjunction or particle introducing the second member is not עד די but וַאֲלוּ or וארו, which means exclusively “and behold”; that is why Theodotion translates it by ιδου and the Vulgate by ecce. Here are two of these passages:
I was looking (חָזֵה הֲוֵית) in the visions of my head upon my bed, and behold (וַאֲלוּ) a Watcher, a Holy One, came down from heaven (4:10; cf. 2:31; 4:7).
I was looking (חָזֵה הֲוֵית) in my vision by night, and behold (וַאֲלוּ) the four winds of heaven stirred up the great sea (7:2)
In Daniel 7 there are two more passages with identical syntactic constructions and the same particles. Comparing these texts with the preceding ones, one must agree with M. Krämer, who says: «On reading Daniel 7 one has the strong impression that the author used alternately the conjunction עד די and וַאֲלוּ or וארו simply to avoid monotony, and that עד די performs a syntactic function identical to that of וַאֲלוּ or וארו» (M. Krämer, Zwei Probleme aus Mt. 1,18-25: Sal 26 (1964) 330). In other words, in the passages of the first group the conjunction עד די possesses the same meaning as וַאֲלוּ or וארו, «and behold»; it is not at all a temporal conjunction.
This is, without the slightest doubt, the sense that the double particle עד די had here, in the account known as that of Joseph’s doubts, which the translator merely “transferred” literally into Greek by means of εως ου. And with this we can now offer the version of the Aramaic original of the whole second half of the account:
“…not being able to know her, behold, she brought forth a son, and he called his name Jesus” (Matthew 1:25).
…
And there is no need for us to insist, as regards the final verse of the account, that everything written or said since Helvidius about how this passage of Matthew gave grounds for denying the virginity of Mary after childbirth has turned out to be selling the bear’s skin before hunting it. That is, they have tried to teach us what the evangelist was saying before having scrupulously translated the entire text of the account; and by translation we mean offering a version in any other language in which all obscurity had disappeared, even that of the slightest syntactic construction.
Note: Mariano Herranz Marco was a fellow student of Fr. Joaquín M. Peñuela, doctor in Semitic languages of the University of Berlin, studying them with a view to the study of the Bible. After nine years of study, in 1962-63 he took a course at the École Biblique of Jerusalem. He was later professor of biblical languages and NT Exegesis at the Seminary of Madrid. In 1977 he received the degree of Doctor in Biblical Theology at the Pontifical University of Comillas, with a thesis on Traces of Aramaic in the Gospels and in Primitive Christian Catechesis. He has published a series of articles on problematic pericopes of the Gospels. In 1974-77 he was editorial director of the collection Cuadernos de Evangelio.
In short, I would not take very seriously either the Protestant argument in question or the Protestant bibliography cited, which ignores and omits all this. There are many other sources (including Protestant ones) that also reject this argument; indeed, the discussion of ἕως and Matthew 1:25 with regard to the perpetual virginity of Mary goes back a long way, and not even the Protestant reformers — very good connoisseurs of Greek — let themselves be confused by arguments like those being presented to you. Calvin, for example, wrote:
“From Matthew 1:25, Helvidius created much confusion in the Church, because from it he deduced that Mary had remained a virgin only until the first birth and afterwards had other children with her husband. The perpetual virginity of Mary was vigorously defended by Jerome. It is enough to say that it is senseless and false to deduce from these words what happened after the birth of Christ. He is called the firstborn for no other reason than that we may know that he was born of the Virgin. In this text it is denied that Joseph had marital intercourse with Mary before the child was born; everything is limited to this time. But nothing is said of what happened afterwards.”
John Calvin, Johannis Calvini Opera quae supersunt omnia (=JCO) (Verlag C. A. Schwedtke und Sohn, Braunschweig 1863 ff.), Bände 45; Commentarius in Harmoniam evangelicam (“Harmonia evangelica” 1555), Band 46; Sermons sur l’Harmonie évangélique 1558, 1560, 1562. JCO 36,156
Luther (who even translated the New Testament in his September Bible — so it may be assumed that he was not exactly ignorant of Greek) and Zwingli also vigorously defended the virginity of Mary (see The Reformers and the Virgin Mary)
Saint Jerome, who was also one of the greatest scholars of the biblical languages (he translated the Vulgate from the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek), wrote a complete refutation of these arguments.
Other biblical commentaries, including Protestant ones, acknowledge this. The following, for example, is Baptist:
“25. And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS—The word ‘till’ does not necessarily imply that they lived on a different footing afterwards (as will be evident from the use of the same word in 1 Sam 15:35; 2 Sam 6:23; Matt 12:20); nor does the word ‘firstborn’ decide the much-disputed question, whether Mary had any children to Joseph after the birth of Christ; for, as Lightfoot says: ‘The law, in speaking of the firstborn, regarded not whether any were born after, but only that none were born before’ (see ch. 13:55-56).”
Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible, by Jamieson-Fausset-Brown
Author: José Miguel Arráiz
_________________________________________________________
A correct explanation of Matthew 1:25 is the following: Biblia Comentada, by Manuel de Tuya, O.P.
The anguish of Saint Joseph, 1:18-21.
On returning from her visit to Elizabeth, Mary “returned to her house” — that of her parents and relatives, or that of her husband. It depends on whether they had celebrated the wedding or only the betrothal.
A classic problem arises in this connection: when the miraculous virginal conception of Jesus was discovered, was Mary only “betrothed” to Joseph, or was she already his true “wife”? What value do the expressions used here to narrate this have?
Three terms come into play here; they are the following:
The verb μνηστεύω: to marry or to betroth; the verb συνέρχομαι: to cohabit, to live together in one house, or also, though rarely, conjugal relations; the third verb is παραλαμβάνω, which means to receive and, according to some, “to retain.”
First of all, it should be noted that Christian tradition is divided when specifying Mary’s state at the moment of the virginal conception of her Son. Thus one finds representatives who interpret the verb “to come together” in the matrimonial sense, and who see in it, in that case, the evangelist’s affirmation that no conjugal relation whatsoever intervened in this conception, nor before the birth. Such are Saint John Chrysostom, Saint Ambrose and Saint Jerome.
There being no unanimity in tradition on this point, it seems most probable to conclude, from reading the text, that it refers to the betrothal, for the following reasons:
a) The normal sense of the verb παραλαμβάνω is that of “receiving.” In profane Greek it is also used to express marriage. If one wishes to suppose that Mary was already married, “the verb would have to be understood in the sense of retaining, keeping, maintaining; but this verb does not have such a sense.” 14
b) In Matthew, the verb παραλαμβάνω is always used in the sense of taking someone as a companion; not of retaining.
c) The verb μνηστεύω, both in classical Greek and in that of the koine, can mean indistinctly to marry or to betroth. It is the context that must decide.
d) The verb συνέρχομαι does not seem to be able to signify, in this passage of Mt, matrimonial relations, for Mt himself, or the translator, expresses these in the same passage by the well-known Hebrew matrimonial euphemism of “knowing.” Thus he says, proving the virginity of Mary in the conception and in the birth: “And (Joseph) knew her not until she brought forth her son.” Why suppose that what is a technical Hebrew term, “to know,” for indicating conjugal relations, is expressed in v. 18 by a verb that is not the normal one, when a few verses later, speaking of the same subject, he expresses it by the material translation of the Hebrew euphemism (yada‘ = to know), technical for conjugal relations? Nor would it be against this that Joseph is called the “husband” of Mary if she were betrothed, since betrothal (qiddushin) in Israel had almost the juridical value of marriage, so that “man” can translate indistinctly “husband” or “betrothed.” Nor, for the same reason, is it an objection that Joseph thinks of “repudiating” Mary. For this term, although technical for indicating the dissolution of a marriage — since betrothal had such special characteristics in Israel —, meant that a betrothed woman could not be repudiated except by means of the bill of repudiation.
Thus, then, before Joseph took Mary to his house — the marriage used to be celebrated the year following the betrothal —, before they lived together, in which act the juridical matrimonial act (nissuin) consisted, it was found that Mary had conceived “by the work of the Holy Spirit,” an expression that evokes the OT and in which the action “ad extra” of God is indicated. A “post factum” expression; perhaps it might allude “by appropriation” to the Holy Spirit as person.
This fact produced bewilderment in Joseph, for his “betrothal” was already a quasi formal contract of marriage. What was he to do?
He could denounce her before a tribunal so that it might “legally” annul the betrothal; retain her, celebrating the marriage and taking her to his house; repudiate her, either publicly, excusing her and without asking for punishment, or privately, by means of a “bill of repudiation” before two witnesses and without alleging any motive. And finally, leave her secretly, departing from Nazareth and letting things be forgotten.
Joseph, because he was “just” (δίκαιος), that is, because he was upright in his conduct before God and before men — although many nuances fit within this term —, determines to “repudiate her in secret,” to give her the bill of repudiation secretly and without a date, so that she might better save her honor. Joseph, faced with the facts, believes in Mary’s honor; otherwise he would have acted differently.
Nevertheless, out of a sense of honor, socially redounding upon her Son, it would be thought that the marriage, juridically, had already been celebrated.
When he was thinking of carrying this out, after strong doubts and reflections, the divine intervention came through “an angel of the Lord.” It was in “dreams.” In Mt these manifestations occur, as in the “Elohist document” of the OT, in dreams; in Luke, with apparitions. In it the mystery accomplished in Mary is revealed to him. He must not “fear” to take her as his wife, for the work of the divine action is no evil, but a great privilege for him.
And he is commanded to give him the name Jesus. Mary “shall bring forth a son,” but you “shall call him Jesus.” It is Joseph who is going to transmit to the child, “legally,” the messianic rights, for he is of the house of David (v. 20). Jesus, which is his proper name and the one containing the mission he comes to accomplish, a transcription of the Aramaic Yeshua, that is, “God saves,” because “he shall save his people from their sins.” An interpretation of the evangelist or of his “source.” An eminently spiritual work, over against the political and nationalist messianism that was expected. The formula with which Matthew transmits this work of the Messiah is the same with which Yahweh is spoken of in the Psalms: “He (God) shall redeem Israel from all his sins” (Ps 130:8). Jesus, the Messiah, will accomplish what in the OT it was expected that God himself would do. A very strong suggestion, already at the beginning of the Gospel, that this child was God.
The Prophecy of the Emmanuel, 1:22-23.
Matthew sees in this fact of the conception of Jesus the fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy about the Emmanuel (Is 7:10-16). It happens precisely “that it might be fulfilled which the Lord had announced through the prophet.” Matthew gives here an interpretation of this prophecy rather forgotten in Jewish tradition, for concerning the origin of the Messiah some maintained a certain divine preexistence in God, with a glorious apparition, and others a purely human Messiah, though of hidden origin. It is, however, a messianic prophecy 19. Matthew himself, in citing this prophecy, puts in place of the ‘Almah, which of itself means a young woman of marriageable age, “virgin,” because in his version he depends on the LXX, which already uses this word, and because it is demanded by the context and the verbal parallels of the OT. 19
Joseph Accepts the “Legal” Paternity of Jesus, 1:24-25.
All doubts resolved, Joseph receives Mary as his wife, taking her officially to his house, and accepts the “legal” paternity of Jesus. And the evangelist adds that he did not “know” her “until” she brought forth her son. The verb “to know” (yada‘) is normally used for conjugal relations, and the Hebraism “until” (‘ad-ki) is also well known, by which is signified only the relation established up to a determined moment, while prescinding from what may happen after it. Thus Michal, David’s wife, “had no more children until the day of her death” (2 Sam 6:23; Gen 8:7; 2 Kings 15:5). When the expression intends to suggest a subsequent change, this is made explicit in the context (Gen 24:33; Acts 23:12.14.21). At times the phrase, losing its subordinate sense, introduces a new and unforeseen event (Dan 2:34; 7:4.11). Interpreted in this way, the text of Mt would not intend so much to express the inviolability of Mary — her supernatural fecundation being understood — as to underline the legal paternity of Joseph. Moreover, the frequent use of this formula to indicate an exclusion is well known. Its sense would then be: “Mary gave birth without conjugal relation with Joseph.”
