jo kus. No, the word "til" does not always mean something came afterward. But according to the Greek Lexicon (Thayers), when coupled with ou, it means up to the time when Jesus was born. So, Joseph knew her not up to the time when Jesus was born is the meaning of the text.
The strong implication is that Joseph and Mary had normal relations as a married couple. They also had children together as James was Jesus' half-brother. Jesus as Mary's FIRSTBORN Son (prototkon- meaning eldest son or firstborn) also implies other children.
Please do not clip from an apologetics site. Look at the lexicon yourself to find out any special context concerning the word in question. I did.
But says nothing about after...
That's what I said, and that is what the Church has said when the question came up.
The strong implication is that Joseph and Mary had normal relations as a married couple
Only if you already believe that in your mind. There is no evidence from that Scripture that Mary and Joseph had sex AFTER the birth of Christ. Considering HOW Mary conceived a child, do you think Joseph would want any part of that sort of relationship with Mary?
They also had children together as James was Jesus' half-brother.
What makes you think James and Jesus had the same mother?
Please do not clip from an apologetics site. Look at the lexicon yourself to find out any special context concerning the word in question. I did
I am giving you examples of the use of "til" when it does not mean something happens AFTER the fact. I will continue to use apologetic sites, rather than comb the Scriptures for myself when the time requires it. Do you think I have nothing better to do than pore over Thayers to prove you wrong when someone already has done it?
Regards
That Thayre that you posted is too cryptic to point either way. If you think it commands "eos ou" being translated as "until" but not "till", why do KJV and Young's literal both have it "till"?
Here is Liddell and Scott on "eos" (see I.6 at link). It says,
6. with Advbs. of Time and Place, he. hote till the time when, c. ind., v.l. for este in X.Cyr.5.1.25; he. hou, f.l. for es hou, Hdt.2.143: freq. in later Gr., Gem.l.c., Ev.Matt.1.25, etc.; he. hotou ib.5.25, etc.; he. pote; how long? ib.17.17, Ev.Jo.10.24; he. tote LXX Ne.2.16 ; he. opse till late, [p. 752] f.l.for es opse, Th.3.108; he. arti 1 Ep.Jo.2.9 ; he. hôde as far as this place, Ev.Luc.23.5.
The emphasis is mine, follow to link for further links. It covers your case, eos followed by adverb ("ou"). It does not fall under the next case in LSJ, indicating "how long?". There is no mentioning of the condition necessarily stopping after the time indicated.
My bet is, if you look up the usage of "eos" and compare it to "eos ou", you will discover that "ou" or "an" simply control the following verb, and no proposition is needed when "eos" controls a noun. Had St. Matthew said "till the birth" rather than "till she gave birth", there would be no "ou". It does not introduce any semantics.