and the normal thing is to have sex,”
Posted on 02/02/2017 5:24:02 PM PST by markomalley
She has 180,000 followers on Twitter, became a daytime TV star with a cooking show sharing traditional convent recipes and waded into local politics speaking out in support of Catalan independence.
But the latest public declarations from the 51-year-old Dominican nun have provoked a stern telling off by the Catholic Church.
Her unlikely appearance on a chat show at the weekend to talk about sex led to her revealing that she didn’t really believe in one of the tenets of the Roman Catholic faith – that Mary, mother of Jesus, was a virgin.
"I think that Mary was in love with Joseph and that they were a normal couple, and the normal thing is to have sex,” the nun who was born in Argentina before moving to a Catalan convent 26 years ago told Risto Mejideon on the Cuatro show Chester in Love.
"It’s hard to believe and to take in,” she added. "We’ve stuck with rules that we have invented without reaching the true message.”
(Excerpt) Read more at thelocal.es ...
By the Fathers, I mean those among the Fathers of the Church who testify to having seen the Hebrew Matthew—Jerome and Origen among them. I am confident that you will not find anyone before Erasmus calling Jerome and Origen liars on this point.
Given the importance placed upon Scripture, even by Catholics, I will grant you that being able to cite a verse from Matthew that said “composed originally in Greek,” you would have a very good case. If, however, you are going to go Sola Scriptura, as you seem to have done, you have no case, unless I missed a verse somewhere.
If you have to fall back to a translation of a translation or a non-existent, purely hypothetical Hebrew text to justify a doctrine, you are on really shaky ground in your support of that interpretation.
So, in your opinion, the Holy Spirit did not preserve a Hebrew gospel for Christians, but entrusted it to non-believers instead? An “original” which contained information vital to understanding Christian doctrine was entrusted only to unbelievers (at least for a great many centuries)? Is that correct?
I know God works in mysterious ways, but that would seem to be more counterproductive than mysterious, if God wants His own followers to have a clear understanding of His message, no?
Regardless, even if you are correct that this text came from an older Hebrew gospel, and not a translation from another language, it would not necessarily follow that it was faithful to the original text. After all, we have multiple, conflicting Hebrew texts of other books of the Bible, and there are strong arguments to be made that some versions, preserved by Rabbinical Jews, as this Hebrew Matthew was, were modified from the original text, rather copied faithfully.
For example, the Rabbinical Pentateuch differs from the Samaritan Pentateuch, and though many scholars assumed that naturally the Rabbinical version was closest to the originals, when the Dead Sea scrolls were discovered, we found that the earlier manuscripts of some books were closer to the Samaritan version. That would seem to indicate the Rabbinical Jews were not necessarily reliable in preserving original material from their own religion, and if not, why would we assume they would be reliable preserving material from a religion they quite strongly opposed?
As for the fact that there are similarities between this Hebrew Matthew and the other works you cited, that could just as well be explained by the existence of another Hebrew version of Matthew, different from the version preserved by the Rabbis in significant ways. After all, we do not conclude all of those other works you cited are accurate or reliable for study because they may originate from some lost Hebrew text, so why would we conclude the Rabbinical Matthew is accurate either? The hypothetical original may have been accurate, but if it was, it is lost, and so we cannot compare it to the Rabbinical version to determine with any certainty how faithfully it might have been preserved in that form.
“the Fathers of the Church who testify to having seen the Hebrew Matthew”
Let’s be accurate and say they testify to having seen A Hebrew Matthew. They are in no position to testify if they saw this particular Hebrew Matthew, or some other text, are they?
Here is a little more information that counters the idea that the perpetual virginity was a commonly held belief of the early church:
The Catholics of Rome and even many of the Protestant Reformers have believed in the idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary.
Notice:
The French reformer John Calvin (1509-1564) was not as profuse in his praise of Mary as Martin Luther, but he did not deny her perpetual virginity. The term he used most commonly in referring to Mary was “Holy Virgin.”
The Swiss reformer, Ulrich Zwingli (1484-1531), wrote, on the perpetual virginity of Mary: “I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin.” Elsewhere Zwingli affirmed: “I esteem immensely the Mother of God, the ever chaste, immaculate Virgin Mary; Christ was born of a most undefiled Virgin.” (Bacchiocchi S. “MARIOLOGY”. ENDTIME ISSUES NEWSLETTER No. 191, 2007).
But where did this come from?
Well, it did not come from the Bible. Here is some of what two Catholic-translations of scripture teach about Mary and her family:
25 And he knew her not till she brought forth her first born son: and called his name JESUS (Matthew 1:25, DRB).
55…Is not his mother the woman called Mary, and his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Jude? 56 His sisters, too, are they not all here with us? (Matthew 13:55b-56a, NJB).
3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joseph, and Jude, and Simon? Are not also his sisters here with us? (Mark 6:3a, DRB)
So, perpetual virginity for Mary is not explicitly part of sacred scripture. Since Jesus was Mary’s first born son—the implication, which is confirmed in scripture, is that she had other sons.
While some have argued that the term for brothers in Matthew 13:55 may mean cousins, the Greek expressions for brothers (adephos) and sisters (adelphe) are what is in the Greek texts. The Greek terms in those verses do not mean cousins (Danker FW, ed. A Greek-Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, p. 18 ). The Greek terms that better convey "cousin" are suggenh/suggenes/anepsios (Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright © 1994, 2003, 2006 Biblesoft, Inc. and International Bible Translators, Inc.). And those terms are the only ones that are translated as "cousin" in the Rheims New Testament (Luke 1:36 DRB; Colossians 4:10 DRB). Mark 6:3 also uses the Greek expression for sisters (adelphe), and does not use the one that convey more distant kin like cousins. Thus, even Catholic translators seemingly admit that Jesus had brothers and sisters, and that cousin comes from different words. If the terms in koine Greek clearly was understood to have meant cousins, then most of those who professed Christ and lived in the first century or so after His incarnation would have realized that. But that was not their position. Furthermore, notice the following:
56 Among whom was Mary Magdalen, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee. (Matthew 27:56, DRB)
The above clearly states that Mary was the mother of James and Joseph. And this is the Mary, mother of Jesus (Mark 6:3; John 2:1)--the Greek term for mother, meéteer, is the same as the one in John 2:1 where Mary is referred to as Jesus' mother). James and Joseph were not Jesus' half-brothers from a sometimes claimed prior marriage for Joseph, Mary's husband. This is not just my opinion. Notice what Catholic Priest and scholar Bagatti has published:
Hence, since the Bible does not say Mary would remain a virgin and it shows that Mary was the mother of at least two of Jesus' brothers, there is no biblical reason to accept the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity (but many still do).
Basically, scripture only says that she was a virgin UNTIL Jesus was born. All real Christians believe that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was conceived inside of her by the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:35) and that she remained a virgin until some time after Jesus was born (Matthew 1:25; 13:55-56). Apparently, the earliest claim as to Mary's so-called perpetual virginity comes from a false document known as the Protoevangelium of James (McNally, p. 73). Why is it false?
This "gospel" falsely claims to have been written by James in Jerusalem and in the first century (The Protoevangelium of James. Translated by Alexander Walker. From Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 8. Edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1886.) Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight. ). It states that a midwife checked, and found, intact proof of Mary's viginity shortly after Jesus was born. The claims of its authorship and date of writing are both being claims scholars realize are false (The Infancy Gospel Of James; Alternate title: The Protovangelion. Geoff Trowbridge's Introduction. http://www.maplenet.net/~trowbridge/infjames.htm viewed 08/13/11; Kirby, Peter. "Infancy Gospel of James." Early Christian Writings. 2011. 13 Aug. 2011 http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/infancyjames.html; Reid, George. "Apocrypha." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 1. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1907. 17 Aug. 2011 ).
Thus, this perpetual virginity teaching seems to have started from false sources.
It may be of interest to understand that the idea of Mary being a perpetual virgin was denounced once it started to become popular. The Catholic Encyclopedia notes:
That last article in The Catholic Encyclopedia also teaches that "St. Ambrose, St. Hilary, and St. Gregory of Tours" held positions similar to the Antidicomarianites. Furthermore, another article in The Catholic Encyclopedia states, "writers like Tertullian, Hevidius, and possibly Hegesippus disputed the perpetual virginity of Mary." Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma adds that the perpetual virginity of Mary was also denied in the “Early Church” by Eunomius, Jovian, Helvidus, and Bishop Bonosus of Sardica as well as Christians with practices some considered to be Jewish (Ott, p. 204).
The Greco-Roman "Saint Basil the Great" in the fourth century wrote:
Therefore, the idea that from the beginning all believed that Mary was a "perpetual virgin" simply is without real merit.
It, however, seemed to become formalized in the sixth and seventh centuries:
This dogma originated from a false source (a "gospel" that Saint James did not write). It was opposed after it started to become popular. Catholic saints scholars, and others opposed it. There is simply no evidence that it was taught by the apostles.
The dogma of the perpetual virginity of Mary is an innovation that is not from sacred scripture nor the true earliest traditions of the Christian church. (http://www.cogwriter.com/saint-mary-dogmas.htm)
This, I believe, is why Protestants stopped teaching this doctrine and why many deny it. The Roman Catholic church declared many doctrines and dogmas that were not taught either in Scripture or by the Apostles within the early church but nonetheless passed edicts that ALL Christians must accept them as articles of the faith. It took the Reformation to open people's eyes to the truth that God's word is the source for our rule of faith. Even the early church fathers held to that. Scripture doesn't teach Mary was perpetually a virgin - though ALL Christians believe Jesus was born of a virgin by the power of the Holy Spirit - and it does teach that Jesus had brothers and sisters.
Also, only John was THERE. All the other disciples had abandoned Jesus because they were afraid and His brothers weren't even believers until after the resurrection.
In my opinion, the Holy Spirit entrusted a Hebrew Gospel, and a whole wack of other Hebrew books which we call the Old Testament, to the community of believers who translated the Hebrew Gospel into other languages as non-Hebrew Christians became more numerous, and then, understandably but regretfully, neglected it in its original language, and the other books was well, when Hebrew became virtually extinct in the community of those with the fulness of the revelation. I find it no more problematical that the Rabbis were chosen to preserve Matthew in the original language than that they were chosen to preserve dozens of other inspired books.
No copy of any large work is completely faithful to the original text. There are a few areas in Matthew as transmitted where one may make a good argument for deliberate scribal interference (I can think of three examples, two of which are easily settled), and undoubtedly there would be accidental scribal interference. But deliberately altering a work preserved for apologetic purposes (which is what it was ultimately used for by the Rabbis) is a bad idea, and so it doesn’t seem to have fared too badly.
You grossly overstate the DSS evidence in support of the SP. Some manuscripts provide some support. One manuscript of Exodus provides a great deal of support—but the others do not to netely the same degree. I’m very curious as to what translation you use that is so dependent upon the SP. I actually seriously doubt that one exists.
There is a chance that you are a Greek and use a more LXX centred text, in which case the SP becomes slightly more relevant.
Once one ventures beyond the safery of John (which does have a couple of issues, but nothing to sweat—I teach a course on John which, among other things, discusses in passing the 150 or so most significant areas of variance among the text for the purpose of allowing students to realize that there is nothing doctrinal at stake), a serious scholar does need to pay some attention to text criticism. Some books are in much worse shape than others. Joshua is a dog’s dinner. Jeremiah is on more certain grounds than Joshua is some ways, but that one of the four DSS manuscripts tends to agree with the LXX against the MT, and the other three tend to agree with the MT (with Jerome opting to follow the MT) leaves at least myself slightly happier to be in the safer ground of Isaiah.
For purposes of working towards salvation, we do have translations etc. that are good enough, but it is always best, if possible, to take the original language into account as much as possible.
Especially to the extent that the Rabbinically preserved Hebrew witness contains scores, if not hundreds, of very pro-Christian insights, it is well worth utilizing in striving for deeper insight into Matthew.
If you think that the Rabbis were somehow trying to undermine Protestant faith by advancing the perpetual virginity of Mary by using a Hebrew pronoun that supports the case (and there is another place that I can think of that is much stronger in the Rabbinical text in supporting the perpetual Virginity, so one could make that argument, I suppose) it is your choice.
In my opinion, calling a few dozen of the fathers liars and treating everyone before Erasmus as fools is folly—but perhaps you find folly praiseworthy. Erasmus did.
If God was a Sola Scriptura sort of guy, I’d be very perplexed about things, and would be even more perplexed if I thought that God had a very simple message that each individual was meant to grasp in its totality in all its details.
Revelation is extremely rich and deep, and I believe, with Augustine and a host of other Fathers, that there is far more that I have missed than I have grasped. But, in the words of Ephraim, I am grateful that Scripture quenches my thirst and allows me to come back for more, rather than that, in my thirst, I have consumed all of Scripture, and when I thirst again, there will be no where to turn.
(See here http://www.agapebiblestudy.com/documents/St%20Ephraim’s%20Advice%20on%20the%20Study%20of%20Sacred%20Scripture.htm
for Ephraim in his own words, the above was a paraphrase of a portion from memory)
Undoubtedly they did not see a 14th century manuscript.
Jerome, at least, saw something that agreed with this manuscript in one point against the Greek, as he comments on it noting that the Hebrew original is more clear than the Greek on a particular point and explaining how the Hebrew reads. Going through the Fathers in detail on this point would be interesting but beyond my temporal capabilities at the moment.
They also never saw your Bible. Or Nestle Aland. Or a whole host of other things. A few may have seen Sinaticus.
If you think Jerome is a liar, then you have some serious thinking to do about how God preserved the bulk of revelation for the bulk of Christians for the bulk of the History of the Church, for they were dependant on Jerome and his judgment, and were definitely not reading the SP.
In proving that not all believed, you make a very good case for most believing.
If a small minority are excluded from the most, and the most includes individuals as diverse, crative and non-mainstream as both Tertullian and Origen, your early patristic case is pretty awful. The sect obviously had more beliefs than just the one you are concerned with, and unless you know which ones in particular they agreed with, being able to list a few fathers in partial support isn’t that great.
Doesn’t FR have another thread about this?
Oh; that OTHER thread is a supposed CAUCUS thread. I guess Prots are only ALLOWED to speak in THIS one...
Sigh...
That's what happens if one wanders from the reservation and starts reading the bible on their own.
Used to known as Common Sense.
If worked well; they'd not have NEWER English translations than D-R!
| Jerusalem Bible (JB - 1966) | New Jerusalem Bible (NJB - 1985) |
| New American Bible (NAB - 1970) |
There was a young priest in our parish;
Who opined on this subject quite garish.
Set wondering ‘bout offspring of Mary;
‘Did others her womb ever carry?’
Begone boy, your words we don’t cherish!!
Look!
A squirrel!
Prove it!
Well; SOMETIMES cousins were referred to as much; so THEREFORE is this NOT one of those times?
--Catholic_Wannabe_Dude(Hail Mary; mother of John!)
Sure a lot on non-biblical words listed here!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.