He's An Only Child -- A response to a Protestant argument against Mary's perpetual virginity

Envoy Magazine ^ | Ronald K. Tacelli, S.J.

[Patrick Madrid]

He's an Only Child
A bogus Greek argument against Mary's perpetual virginity is making the rounds.
By Ronald K. Tacelli, S.J.

Recently, in some Internet discussion groups, a few Protestant apologists have been expending quite a bit of energy trying to refute the Catholic doctrine of the Blessed Virgin Mary's perpetual virginity. "Ho hum", you might be saying to yourself. "What's new or interesting about that? The 'Mary-had-other-children' canard has been effectively demolished by Catholic apologists a hundred times over. Who cares about this latest twist on a worn-out claim?"

 

My reaction, each time Professor McCrossen ranted about this, was: What's the big deal? No reasonable person would take the phrase "He knew her not until she gave birth" as somehow proving that he never knew her at all. Why rail away against a position no sensible person is likely to take anyway?

Well, as one who believes in Mary's perpetual virginity, I care, and you should, too. You see, this new argument is based on two Greek terms that mean "until": heos and heos hou.

These Protestant critics of Mary's perpetual virginity are training their guns on Matthew 1:25, claiming that the Greek term for "until" used by St. Matthew - heos hou - implies a reversal or cessation of the condition that is expressed in the clause preceding it. Thus they're attempting to show from linguistic evidence alone that Scripture contradicts the Catholic dogma of Mary's perpetual virginity. And that is a very big deal.

These Internet Intellectuals willingly admit that the Greek word heos all by itself does not imply any such reversal or cessation. This is true of 1 Timothy 4:13, for example: "[heos] I come, attend to the public reading of scripture." But in Matthew 1:25, heos is not used by itself; the word for "until" is heos hou. And in the New Testament heos hou always indicates reversal of the preceding clause - or so they claim. One of the Protestant apologists involved in this Internet argument wrote:

"We have insisted that the basic meaning of heos hou in the New Testament, when it means 'until,' always implies a change of the action in the main clause" (emphasis in the original).

Now if this were true it would indeed indicate that there is linguistic reason for denying the teaching of the Catholic Church on Mary's perpetual virginity. So on that little conjunction, heos hou, a great deal seems to depend.

My old history professor at Boston College, Vincent McCrossen, God rest his soul, used to scream at us in class: "Matthew 1:25, where it says that Joseph did not know Mary until she had given birth to Jesus, does not - repeat: does not - prove that Mary was perpetually a virgin!" He went on to say (or rather scream) that the Greek word for "until" (heos) leaves the matter open. It does not necessarily imply that what didn't happen before the birth (ie. Joseph's "knowing" Mary) did happen after it.

My reaction, each time Professor McCrossen ranted about this, was: What's the big deal? No reasonable person would take the phrase "He knew her not until she gave birth" as somehow proving that he never knew her at all. Why rail away against a position no sensible person is likely to take anyway?

That was my first reaction. But upon further reflection, part of what he said seemed reasonable. Even in English the word "until" need not imply that what didn't happen before some point in time did happen after it.

Think of Granny. She started taking an antibiotic last night; this morning her skin has broken out in welts. We call the doctor and he tells us: "Don't give her any of that medicine until I get there!" In this case the word "until" means pretty much the same as "before"; and there is no implication that Granny will get the medicine after the doctor arrives. In fact, it's implied that she probably won't. So I concluded at the time: Better to say that Matthew 1:25 does not disprove Mary's perpetual virginity; that considered in itself and from the point of view of language alone it does indeed leave the matter open. Catholics can read it as consistent with their Faith; Protestants, as consistent with theirs. Both readings are possible. In any case, it's no big deal. Right?

Wrong. The heos hou argument is bogus.

I'm fluent in classical and koine Greek (koine is the simpler style of Greek used by the New Testament writers), having studied it for many years prior to my ordination to the priesthood and before I earned my Ph.D. I've taught high school and university courses in Greek, and I regularly read Scripture in Greek. But none of that qualifies me as anything close to being an expert in Greek. So rather than trust my own judgment, I checked it out with the experts.

I printed out transcripts of the online heos hou arguments made by these Protestant apologists and showed them to several Greek scholars. They laughed, treating them with scornful derision. They confirmed what I already knew: that heos hou is just shorthand for heos hou chronou en hoi (literally: until the time when), and that both heos and heos hou have the same range of meaning. But do they? Professional scholars can sometimes be dismissive because they've been scooped by unpedigreed amateurs. Could that be the case here? What does a hard look at the evidence reveal?

For one thing, it reveals that not every occurrence of heos hou in the New Testament plainly indicates reversal of the condition being described in the main clause.

Consider Acts 25:21: "But when Paul demanded to be kept in custody until [eis] the Emperor's verdict, I gave orders that he should be kept in custody until [heos hou] I could send him on to Caesar" (Anchor Bible translation, slightly amended; my bracketing).

Now when St. Paul was to be sent on, he was surely going to remain in custody; for his original request was to be kept in custody until the Emperor's verdict. Hence the use of heos hou in this verse does not imply that Paul ceased to be kept in custody after he had been remanded to Caesar. It implies the very opposite.

Another example of heos hou being used without any sense of a change in condition after the "until" happens is 2 Peter 1:19:

"Moreover, we possess the prophetic message that is altogether reliable. You will do well to be attentive to it, as a lamp shining in a dark place, until (heos hou) the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts." Clearly, St. Peter was not insinuating that we should cease being attentive to the truths he was presenting after "the day dawns and the morning star rises in [our] hearts." Here, as in Matthew 1:25, heos hou does not imply a change.

Think of a comparable case. Luigi, a mob informant in Chicago, tells agent Smith that he wants to be held in protective custody till he can meet with the head of the FBI in DC. Agent Smith phones his superiors and says: "I've put Luigi in protective custody until I can arrange for transportation to DC." Will Luigi cease to remain in protective custody once he leaves for DC? Of course not. The force of agent Smith's "until" obviously concerns the time before Luigi's leaving. He might have said to his superiors: "Luigi is in protective custody now and will remain in protective custody during the whole time before I'm able to arrange for his transportation to DC." But we express this in normal English by the word "until." If agent Smith had been speaking koine Greek, it seems clear he'd have said heos hou.

But suppose all this is wrong. Suppose that, apart from Matthew 1:25, every occurrence of heos hou in the New Testament clearly indicates a reversal of the main clause. That would still not prove that reversal is implied by Matthew 1:25. It would merely prove that Matthew 1:25 may be the only place in the New Testament where reversal is not implied. If this is supposed to be a linguistic argument, we need to ask ourselves: Did heos hou really have a range of meaning significantly different from heos all by itself? Is there evidence that between (say) 300 B.C. and 300 A.D., Greek speakers recognized that heos hou, unlike heos by itself, always implied reversal or cessation of what is expressed in the main clause?

The answer is no.

One Greek text well known to the authors of the New Testament was the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament. It was in place roughly two hundred years before Christ. And there, lo and behold, we find that heos hou does not always indicate reversal or cessation. In Psalm 111 (112):8 we read: "His heart is steadfast, he shall not be afraid until [heos hou] he looks down upon his foes." Obviously the man who delights in the Lord's commands is going to continue to have a steadfast heart and to be unafraid even after he looks down upon his foes.

Skip ahead now to the third century A.D. Clement of Alexandria wrote: "Thus thirty years were completed until [heos hou] He [Jesus] suffered" (Stromateis, 1.21; Patrologia Graeca, 8.885a). There is no reversal of the main clause here; once again, heos hou is equivalent to "before." So two hundred years before the New Testament and two hundred years after the New Testament, heos hou could be used, like heos all by itself, to mean extent of time up to a point - but with no negation of the idea expressed in the main clause.

Do our Cyberspace Savants really expect anyone to believe that for a brief period in the middle of this consistent usage, heos hou suddenly had to indicate reversal of the main clause? Or maybe they think that the New Testament was written in a special kind of Greek - one raised uniquely above the mundane flow of usage that preceded and followed it. Or maybe they're blowing smoke concerning a language they really don't know very much about. Or maybe these Protestant apologists do know a good deal about Greek, but they are either ignorant of this particular issue (and are trumpeting their ignorance over the Internet), or they do know their argument has no merit on linguistic grounds and are sneakily persisting in using it.

But regardless of how well or poorly these men know Greek, St. John Chrysostom, one of the greatest early Church Fathers, surely knew the Greek language immensely well (he wrote and spoke it fluently) and was sensitive to its every nuance. Let's look at what he had to say on the subject of Mary's perpetual virginity and the meaning of heos hou.

In his sermons on St. Matthew's Gospel (cf. Patrologia Graeca, 7.58), St. John Chrysostom quotes Matthew 1:25 and then asks, "But why . . . did [St. Matthew] use the word 'until'?" Note well here: In quoting the verse, Chrysostom had used heos hou; but in asking the question, the word he uses for "until" is heos all by itself - as if he were unaware of a difference in meaning between these two expressions.

He answers his question by saying that it is usual and frequent for Scripture to use the word "until" (heos) without reference to limited times. Then he gives three examples. The first is his own paraphrase of Genesis 8:7: "The raven did not return until the earth was dried up." Here Chrysostom uses heos hou for "until." (But the actual text of the Septuagint has heos alone.) The second example is from Psalm 90:2: "From everlasting to everlasting you are." The verse quoted (correctly) by Chrysostom has heos all by itself. The third example is from Psalm 72:7: "In his days justice shall flourish and fullness of peace until the moon be taken away." And here the word for "until," as in the Septuagint text, is heos hou.

If Joseph was a just man and a faithful Jew, if he believed that the God he worshipped, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God who was present in the Holy of Holies, was present also in Mary's womb as Father of her Child,  is it really likely that he would have had relations with his wife once the Child had been born?

It's clear that for St. John Chrysostom, heos has exactly the same meaning as heos hou. That's why he framed his question about "until" in terms of heos alone, even though the verse giving rise to the question, which he'd just finished quoting, had heos hou instead. That's why it was natural for him to use heos hou in his paraphrase of Genesis 8:7. And that is why, in his list of analogues to Matthew 1:25, he used both heos and heos hou without the slightest hesitation - his linguistically sensitive ear registered no difference in meaning between them. (But there is a syntactical difference: heos hou came normally to be used as a conjunction; heos by itself as a preposition.)

If an unbridgeable linguistic chasm separated these two expressions, how could it be that the greatest master of the Greek language in all Christendom was unaware of it? The plain answer is that there was no such chasm. The whole "heos hou vs. heos" argument is a bunch of hooey. And both Sophocles in his Greek Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine Periods and Stephanus in his Thesaurus Graecae Linguae agree; they state explicitly that heos and heos hou are equivalent in meaning.

And finally, we have the testimony of the Septuagint, the Greek version of the Old Testament that the Apostles and the early Church Fathers almost always quoted from in their writings.

So in this corner, ladies and gentlemen, we have Sophocles, Stephanus, the Septuagint, St. John Chrysostom, and modern Greek scholars; in that corner, we have the "Pentium Pamphleteers," swashbuckling Internet polemicists who are pretty clumsy in their wielding of this particular "argument" from the Greek. If you were inclined to wager money, I'd ask you: Where would you place your bets?

But beyond all this, it's the surrounding context, not words considered simply in themselves, that will usually tip the balance of interpretation. If we hear someone say: "I'm not going to eat anything until Thursday," we figure that come Thursday he's going to eat something - because people normally eat. Likewise when we read that a married couple did not have intercourse until a certain time, we figure that they did have intercourse after that time - because this is one of the ways married people normally express their love. And no doubt most (though not all) Protestants read Matthew 1:25 as they do, not out of any pedantic pseudo-scholarship or desire to derogate Mary or compulsive hatred for the Catholic Church.

Rather, they simply desire to see Mary and Joseph as a normal, loving couple. And to all such people of good will, I would close with the following question I'd ask them to ponder before they deny Mary's perpetual virginity: If Joseph was a just man and a faithful Jew, if he believed that the God he worshipped, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God who was present in the Holy of Holies, was present also in Mary's womb as Father of her Child - is it really likely that he would have had relations with his wife once the Child had been born?

And if that question does not give you pause, be assured of my prayers until (heos hou) it does (and afterwards as well).

Call 1-800-55-ENVOY today and subscribe at our special introductory rate, order directly with our online subscription form, or buy a copy of Envoy at a location near you!

---

Home · Subscribe/Renew · Articles · About · Help Envoy· Advertise 
 Why Subscribe? · Writers' Guidelines ·  Permission/Use ·  Contact Envoy

800-55-envoy or 740-587-2292

[Invincibly Ignorant]

Wake up, because it is the Prods who have claimed necessity.

Wake up. I'm not a prod.

[SoothingDave]

I posted because I hate to see Christians fight among themselves over an issue like this. We waste all of our time fighting each other and trying to convert each other, when we should spend our time spreading the gospel to non-Christians. If we are Christians, we are going to Heaven anyway. We need to take as many people to Heaven with us as possible. This argument is does nothing to help us do that.

I understand your position.

On the other hand, there are folks on either side of this debate who do not share your assurance that all are "Christians" who are all destined for Heaven.

On the contrary, it can be said that the belief in this "Fairy tale" of perpetual virginity is evidence of the Catholic being slavishly devoted to his institution and lacking the faith in the Bible alone and Jesus alone as required for salvation.

On the other side, the persistent denial of this virginity and the Church that teaches it and other Traditional Christian ideas is thought to emperil the soul of the "just plain" Christian believer.

So either side has sincere motives to make the other side see the danger in its beleifs.

SD

[RobbyS]

Guess you slept through all that.

[Ex-Wretch]

You are a heretic.

You believe like the Pagans ...

You don't realize it was always God's plan that Jesus become incarnate.

Homosexualist doublespeak.

You imply something would somehow be lacking in having God as a member of your family, that only sexual relations could fulfill. This seems sacrilegious and blasphemous to me.

Is this your best shot? If I be a heretic to you, it's only YOPIOS. Again, may God choose between me and thee.

You and Polycarp are twins. You're not very good fishermen.

But you are Master Baiters.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

Guess you slept through all that.

You're new creed? Lol.

[RobbyS]

Wake up. I'm not a prod. If you had read the article you will know he is talking about Prods. Their arguement, not yours.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

If we are Christians, we are going to Heaven anyway.

Apparently familiarity with the Bible is not a necessity in your belief?

Matthee 7.21 Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven.

22 Many will say to me in that day: Lord, Lord, have not we prophesied in thy name, and cast out devils in thy name, and done many miracles in thy name?

23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity.

All Christians going to heaven my foot.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Is this your best shot? If I be a heretic to you, it's only YOPIOS. Again, may God choose between me and thee.

No my best shot was against BigMack. You were a side issue of no real importance.

And what the heck do you have besides YOPIOS? I have the Church and 2000 years of Christianity in addition.

You really want God to chose between us? I'd rather he enlighten you and hopefully take us both.

You and Polycarp are twins. You're not very good fishermen.

Who said I was fishing?

But you are Master Baiters.

Better that than a filthy minded heretic.

What is your need to dwell in filth? "Now the works of the flesh are manifest: which are fornication, uncleanness, immodesty, luxury, ... and such like. Of the which I foretell you, as I have foretold to you, that they who do such things shall not obtain the kingdom of God." (Galatians 5.21-23)

Obviously, the truth is not in you.

"He who saith that he knoweth him and keepeth not his commandments is a liar: and the truth is not in him." (1 John 2.4)

"He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also to walk even as he walked." (1 John 2.6)

You follow not the path of the Lord, and there is only one other path to follow.

[carton253]

Actually, it does say that Mary had other children. Not explicity as you stated, but it's clear if you try not to spin it out... (not saying that you are doing that)

Matthew 1:25 reads: And (Joseph) knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS..

Why does Matthew qualify Jesus as her firstborn son? Why does he use the word first. Because there was a second son at least.

[Aquinasfan]

My info came from my memory of reading Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. You can check your copy.

The two doctrines are inextricably linked, and it is very clear from Scripture that salvation is impossible apart from faith in the Person of Christ and His Mission.

We've been over this ground before, but I'll just cite the Catechism on this one:

"Those, who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and moved by grace, try in their actions to do His will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience — those too may attain eternal salvation" (Catechism, no. 847).

[SoothingDave]

Why does Matthew qualify Jesus as her firstborn son? Why does he use the word first. Because there was a second son at least.

LOL. Try reading the Old Testament sometime.

SD

[carton253]

Try not to be so insulting sometime...

Really, totally uncalled for...

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

Hey dude, ya not posting?

BigMack

[Ex-Wretch]

I thank God for deliverance from the lusts of the flesh, the lusts of the eyes and the pride of life.

There are many things I could say, that discretion won't allow. You have a zeal but, like Saul unto Stephen, it is misdirected. I do perceive a very strong spirit of anti-Christ growing in your posts. But, these are the last days we are living in and, it is expected.

Repent! Humble yourself and return to your first love (if you ever really had it), the love of Jesus - NOT devotion to Mary)

[SoothingDave]

The only thing insulting is what you think passes for an argument. But, since you requested it.

Exodus 12:29 And it came to pass, that at midnight the LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle.

Is it your contention that any animal or child that was an only child was spared from this? If a young woman had just had her first child, but had not gotten pregnant a second time yet, did her child die?

According to your "argument" that being "firstborn" requires (at least) a second, we must conclude this.

Exodus 13:2 Sanctify unto me all the firstborn, whatsoever openeth the womb among the children of Israel, both of man and of beast: it is mine.

Did the Old testament Hebrews sanctify the "firstborn" upon the birth of the second? According to your argument, they must have, for they would not know that it was a "firstborn" until second was born after it.

Exodus 13:13 And every firstling of an ass thou shalt redeem with a lamb; and if thou wilt not redeem it, then thou shalt break his neck: and all the firstborn of man among thy children shalt thou redeem.

Of course, they did not do this until after the mother had a second born, right? Cause an only child, a first child is not a "firstborn" unless there is at least one more child born. Right?

Numbers 3:42 And Moses numbered, as the LORD commanded him, all the firstborn among the children of Israel.
And all the firstborn males by the number of names, from a month old and upward, of those that were numbered of them, were twenty and two thousand two hundred and threescore and thirteen.

Of course, this number does not include any only children. Right?

Shall I continue?

SD

[Hermann the Cherusker]

How do you personally reconcile paragraph 847 with paragraph 161 in the Catechism?

[Hermann the Cherusker]

You have not been delivered from such lusts, and your last post reveals it. Don't kid yourself.

[eastsider]

One may, of course, marry and not have sex. This was what St. Joseph and the Blessed Virgin did, what Roman Catholic Priests did for the first millenium of the Church's existence (abstained from their wives after ordination) ...

The lex continentiae.

[SoothingDave]

Luke 2:
21 And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called JESUS, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb.
22 And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord;
23 (As it is written in the law of the LORD, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord;)
24 And to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons.

Hmmm. Mary and Joseph offered the required offering according to the Law for a "firstborn" even though they had not yet had their second child. How can this be?

SD

[Quester]

The only thing insulting is what you think passes for an argument.

It simply is not a good argument.

What, at all, is insulting about it ?

Were you, truly, insulted by it ?