|
  |
|
Posted on 06/23/2003 2:36:07 PM PDT by Patrick Madrid
|
|||||||
|
He's an Only Child 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?"
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 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).
|
 |
Home · Subscribe/Renew · Articles · About · Help Envoy· Advertise
Why Subscribe? · Writers' Guidelines · Permission/Use · Contact Envoy
800-55-envoy or 740-587-2292
No. God created them male and female and the sexual bond to "be fruitful and multiply" not "enjoy each others company".
Question. Why would Mary and Joseph need more children after Christ?
If Mary and Joseph, knowing what they knew, were not Christians, then what were they? They had participated in truly extraordinary events that told them who this extraordinary child was, long before his public career.
They did not-- like modern Americans-- rank a family life among the single life.
What?
I meant to say that early Christians did not like modern Americans rank family life above the single life. It would not have seemed odd for them to have heard that Mary and Joseph lived such a life. Those Catholics who blithely talk about a married priesthood haven't a clue about the views of Christians of the early centuries about marriage and sex and the practices of married clergy. And of course celibacy was highly regarded. Those Christians would have understood the Shakers' celibate lifestyle perfectly,if not their theology.
Moreover, the reference to the seed of the woman in the last verse is a direct reference back to Genesus 3.15, which is clearly a prophecy about Mary and Jesus, and not God's people Israel and Jesus.
I'll keep hunting. Thanks for your posts. I'm learning.
This is a unique perspective. Somehow you have taken the reality of Jesus being without maternal siblings and managed to preserve the important fact that she must have had sexual relations. Peculiar.
Zachariah doubting the Lord vs. Mary questioning him? The Lord had quite different plans for Mary than he had for Zachariah. Plus, they had different personalities and would respond in different ways to different treatments. Disciplining one and not disciplining the other could have had many factors; the proposition that she would remain a virgin would be the cause is stretching it quite a bit from my viewpoint.
I'm not sure you have understodd the argument. It is not that God failed to discipline her is used as an argument, but rather that her response ("How can this be?") makes no sense for a normal woman, about to be married. If an angel had told your wife on the eve of your wedding that she would conceive a child, would your wife say "How is this possible?" Wouldn't a normal woman assume that natural conception methods were being discussed, absent any other revelation?
So, my viewpoint on this. I don't posit anything as proof that they DID have sexual relations. I just figure that such is the natural (and God-approved) course of events for married couples, and thus figure in the absence of specific statements to the contrary that this is what they did.
I appreciate your measured viewpoint. But I think you need to give the last point a bit more thought. Can you explain her response?
SD
Today, however, I have no such excuse, for the example of Christ is readily available to me, so, I can simply cut out all of the middlemen and follow Christ, so purely as His example is penned in the holy scriptures.
You seem to miss that the "Example of Christ" was taught, first, by word of mouth. There is no reason to believe that there was little teaching available prior to the writing of the NT.
SD
Your papacy will introduce the sale of "anulligans"?
SD
It's a fairly strong anti-Marian bias that can fail to see a woman giving birth to a savior as Mary.
SD
But they didn't forsake a normal life. Mary raised her child (or children, depending on how you interpret Scripture) at home. Joseph worked as a carpenter to support his family.
Are you forgetting the flight into Egypt? The birth of this child was not a normal event, and it brought the family into great peril.
SD
Read your newspaper lately? Fleeing from war/unrest/government persecution on the basis of race or religion makes you what is called a refugee. There's millions of them all over the planet. It's not exactly normal, but I wouldn't call it unusual.
I'm referring to the argument that Mary and Joseph must not have had sexual relations because Mary had no other children. What I'm saying is that 1) there are authorities that believe that she did, but setting that aside, 2) there are plenty of infertile couples even now, in an era of modern science, so it's not much of a stretch that Mary was infertile. Or Joseph; even if he had fathered children previously, an injury or illness could have left him infertile at this point in his life. Lack of children is no proof of lack of sex.I'm not sure you have understodd the argument. It is not that God failed to discipline her is used as an argument, but rather that her response ("How can this be?") makes no sense for a normal woman, about to be married.
Because the full quote of Luke 1:34 (KJV) is: "Then said Mary unto the angel, 'How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?'". Now, the way I read this is that Mary interpreted Gabriel's words to mean that she was going to get pregnant very soon, prior to her marriage, not that she was going to get pregnant in the normal course of events. "... seeing I know not a man" is present tense, not future tense. Unless there's something funky about the Greek I'm not aware of.
You are understating it a tad. The baby Jesus was the target of an asassination campaign by the local sovereign.
It's not exactly normal, but I wouldn't call it unusual.
My point exactly. They didn't have this baby and then resume their normal lives, him carpenting and her spitting out babies.
SD
Oh, absolutely. I wasn't aware anyone had made such a claim. It is certainly a silly argument.
Because the full quote of Luke 1:34 (KJV) is: "Then said Mary unto the angel, 'How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?'". Now, the way I read this is that Mary interpreted Gabriel's words to mean that she was going to get pregnant very soon, prior to her marriage, not that she was going to get pregnant in the normal course of events.
It is an assumption that Mary took the words that way. Nothing in the text claims any time frame for the pregnancy, nor for how far in advance of the marriage the visitation occurred. We don't know if it was a week before the wedding or a year.
If the angel had said "you ARE pregnant" then Mary would certainly have the response she did. But telling an engaged woman that she WILL conceive should not lead to mystification. Unless, of course, she was ignorant of the birds and bees, which I don't think is the case.
"... seeing I know not a man" is present tense, not future tense. Unless there's something funky about the Greek I'm not aware of.
Again, past tense would make more sense. "I have not known a man" If she thought she was to become pregnant at the moment or very soon.
Is she saying "I know not a man" like someone might say "I do not eat meat"?
SD
SD: It's a fairly strong anti-Marian bias that can fail to see a woman giving birth to a savior as Mary.
Not really. There are aspects of the sign/wonder which do not correlate to Mary.
OTOH, all of the aspects of the sign/wonder correlate well with Israel.
Aspects of the sign/wonder which argue persuasively for the interpretation of the sign as Israel ...The woman's crown of twelve stars (per the twelve tribes of Israel) vs. 1
The dragon's persecution and homicidal pursuit of the woman (anti-semitism) vss. 13, 15
Who knows? Why wouldn't they? Why does anyone need children? Because Mary and Joseph had Jesus, that means that God has no plans for anyone else in the family line? What has this got to do with anything?
I am aware of the fact that Christianity was, historically, presented by oral means, ... actually from its founding to this time (for aome peoples of the world).
My point is that it should be readily understandable that the comprehensive view of JESUS we get through the scriptures (i.e. the OT plus Matthew - Revelations) was not wholly available to the early Christians, particularly those of the first century, during which time the writings of the NT did not exist, but rather, were actually in production.
Thus, the extent of a first century christian's view of Christ would easily (and most likely) be based on the testimony of one missionary/evangelist team, which, likely, would not supply the comprehensive picture of Christ we have today available in the scriptures.
2) ... And so Our Predecessor, Benedict XIV, had just cause to write: "We declare that a great number of those who are condemned to eternal punishment suffer that everlasting calamity because of ignorance of those mysteries of faith which must be known and believed in order to be numbered among the elect."[Note 3: Instit., 27:18.] ...
5) We by no means wish to conclude that a perverse will and unbridled conduct may not be joined with a knowledge of religion. Would to God that facts did not too abundantly prove the contrary! But We do maintain that the will cannot be upright nor the conduct good when the mind is shrouded in the darkness of crass ignorance. A man who walks with open eyes may, indeed, turn aside from the right path, but a blind man is in much more imminent danger of wandering away. Furthermore, there is always some hope for a reform of perverse conduct so long as the light of faith is not entirely extinguished; but if lack of faith is added to depraved morality because of ignorance, the evil hardly admits of remedy, and the road to ruin lies open.
-Pope St. Pius X, ACERBO NIMIS, 15 April 1905
Certainly, one can be ignorant of items like the condemnation of the validity of Anglican Orders and be saved (though it seems quite dangerous, on the other hand, to dispute this and deny it if one is aware of it, for that is wrestling with the verdict of St. Peter in the Pope). On the other hand, I think one cannot be ignorant of the moral law, the state of future rewards and punishments, the existence of the Trinity, or the Incarnation of Christ, and His Crucifixion and Resurrection.
It doesn't make much sense to me to speak of eternal life for those who don't know God, since they cannot love that which they are ignorant of.
The texts of Ven. Pope Pius IX is often adduced:
There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal torments.
-Bl. Pope Pius IX, Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, Para. 7, 10 August 1863
... but, on the other hand, it is necessary to hold for certain that they who labor in ignorance of the true religion, if this ignorance is invincible, are not stained by any guilt in this matter in the eyes of God.
-Bl. Pope Pius IX, Singulari quadem, 9 December 1854
The clear point to be drawn here is that no one will be condemned and suffer eternal punishments (poena sensus) for being ignorant of truths of the Catholic Religion. But that does not mean these same people are on the right road! Being ignorant of the truths of Holy Religion does not relieve one of the guilt suffered for transgressing the moral law.
Among these figures the ark of Noah holds a conspicuous place. It was built by the command of God, in order that there might be no doubt that it was a symbol of the Church, which God has so constituted that all who enter therein through Baptism, may be safe from danger of eternal death, while such as are outside the Church, like those who were not in the ark, are overwhelmed by their own crimes. (Catechism of the Council of Trent, On The 9th Article of the Creed)
Bl. Pius IX only holds out the possibility of salvation towards those who follow the natural law and are enlightened by divine light and grace - "The gifts of heavenly grace will assuredly not be denied to those who sincerely want and pray for refreshment by the divine light." (Singulari quadem). And yet, he forcefully insists that:
... it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching.
-Bl. Pope Pius IX, Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, Para. 7, 10 August 1863
The gifts being referred to can only mean enlightenment with the Catholic faith, because this alone, with Baptism, will put one into unity with the Church. The Decree of Trent on Justification is clear enough on this matter. Its impossible to understand how one is to make Acts of Faith, Hope, Love, and Contrition, as well as to vow to God to receive Baptism, if one is invincibly ignorant of the very nature of God. To whom are these Acts to then be directed?
Let me first say that I am very open to the idea of the text, especially such as the Apocalypse being mutl-layered. If Isaiah can predict King Ahiz's baby and Jesus, then this can be about Israel and Mary.
Anyway.
The woman's crown of twelve stars (per the twelve tribes of Israel) vs. 1
Ahem. Who is (besides Jesus) the most favored, most excellently chosen, most worthy individual to ever come out of the entire Hebrew people?
Mary. She is the crown jewel of the race, the one chosen to bring about the Messiah. She is Queen of them all, made to bring about the King of all nations.
A crown with 12 stars you would deny her?
The dragon's persecution and homicidal pursuit of the woman (anti-semitism) vss. 13, 15
I thought we just talked about the flight to Egypt? Didn't the dragon try to persue the woman and kill her offspring?
Didn't Herod try to find the offspring and kill it?
Also, one could pesher that many today still persecute the woman, Mary, by various means.
SD
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.
