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

[RonF]

Maybe. Maybe not. I'm not claiming that Scripture proves that Mary's virginal status didn't continue after Jesus's birth. I'm claiming that Scripture doesn't prove that it did. The arguments that I've seen for "Mary stayed a virgin until she died" all are based on analogies and conjecture, but I don't see any factual statements in Scripture that address the issue directly. And I'm offering the opinion that in the absence of such, it's reasonable to presume that Mary and Joseph enjoyed the usual course of married life.

I'm not claiming that Scripture proves that Mary did have subsequent marital relations, either; while it does refer to "brothers" for Jesus, it seems to do so in a context that admits to (but does not require) the usage of the term to refer to people to whom you are very close, but not related to in blood (such as my fraternity brothers). So, if you want to believe that she stayed a virgin all her life, go ahead. But to insist on it as a matter of doctrine is farther than I think is justified.

[Quester]

They didn't have this baby and then resume their normal lives, him carpenting and her spitting out babies.

Once Herod was dead, there was nothing preventing such a life.

In fact, once Herod was dead, the family moved back to Nazareth and, per the later testimony of their neighbors (when they were confronted with JESUS' ministry), their life there did not seem to be all that out of the ordinary.

Matthew 13:54 And when he was come into his own country, he taught them in their synagogue, insomuch that they were astonished, and said, Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty works?

55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?
------------------------------------------------------
Mark 6:1 And he went out from thence, and came into his own country; and his disciples follow him.

2 And when the sabbath day was come, he began to teach in the synagogue: and many hearing him were astonished, saying, From whence hath this man these things? and what wisdom is this which is given unto him, that even such mighty works are wrought by his hands?

3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.

[SoothingDave]

I don't see any factual statements in Scripture that address the issue directly.

Correct. And that cuts either way. So some of us listen to the handed-down testimony from the early Church. Others presume what is "reasonable" given their experience with life.

while it does refer to "brothers" for Jesus, it seems to do so in a context that admits to (but does not require) the usage of the term to refer to people to whom you are very close, but not related to in blood (such as my fraternity brothers).

Not exactly. The claim is that the word is broader than our modern American definition. "Brothers and sisters" are simply relations, or kin. Family, but not necessarily from the same uterus as yourself.

SD

[Quester]

A crown with 12 stars you would deny her?

Of course not.

I am, simply, saying that, scripturally, the correspondence (12 stars - 12 tribes) dovetails best with Israel.

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?

As is noted in a related post (# 322), the Herodian persecution of the family ended with the death of Herod, ... rather early in JESUS' life.

Once again, the persistent persecution of the woman (who did not have her child with her by the way ... the child was snatched up to heaven by God) ...

... which we find described, ... particularly, in verses 15 and 16 of Revelation 12, ...

... corresponds best with Israel, ... who, though JESUS has ascended, ... still face an otherwise irrational persecution even to this day.

Also, one could pesher that many today still persecute the woman, Mary, by various means.

Persecuted in heaven ... how would that be ?

[SoothingDave]

I am, simply, saying that, scripturally, the correspondence (12 stars - 12 tribes) dovetails best with Israel.

She is Israel. At least she is the crowning symbol of Israel, its peak acheivement.

As is noted in a related post (# 322), the Herodian persecution of the family ended with the death of Herod, ... rather early in JESUS' life.

Yes, and you had a good point there. Here, I am merely showing how the imagery fits into Mary's life.

Persecuted in heaven ... how would that be ?

Her person, her being, her life, her role. All are routinely mocked by those claiming to love her Son. It is the creulest form of persecution, this irrational belief that they can bring people to her Son by destroying the image of the mother. That attacking people's beliefs in what the Son has done for the mother, what he promises to do for us as well, is a way to bring us to Him.

SD

[SoothingDave]

Once again, the persistent persecution of the woman (who did not have her child with her by the way ... the child was snatched up to heaven by God) ...

... corresponds best with Israel, ... who, though JESUS has ascended, ... still face an otherwise irrational persecution even to this day.

I think you will find that Mary, too, had her child taken way from her, first into death and then into Heaven.

SD

[RonF]

Well, of the two of the four Gospels that tell stories of the Nativity and early life of our Lord, one says that they fled to Egypt, and the other doesn't mention it. But the other does say that Jesus had problems teaching at home because the people there thought of him as the son of Joseph, the carpenter. This implies that Joseph upon taking residence with his family took up his trade and supported his family. Sounds like a normal family life to me.

Again; no proof that they did, no proof that they didn't. We are left to reason and tradition, and end up weighing those against each other. I go one way, others go the other. If you wish to accept this as an article of faith, I have no argument. If you wish to accept this as doctrine that's proven by Scripture, then I do argue.

[SoothingDave]

We are left to reason and tradition, and end up weighing those against each other. I go one way, others go the other.

Fair enough. Thank you for the fine, civil conversation. It's nice to see that's still possible once in a while around here. :-)

SD

[Quester]

I think you will find that Mary, too, had her child taken way from her, first into death and then into Heaven.

Still, ... the sequence of the Revelation 12 events (i.e. birth, child goes to heaven, ... then singular persecution) does not quite fit Mary's experience.

[OLD REGGIE]

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?'".

William Shakespeare: The Tragedy of King Lear
ACT IV. Scene VII. (One of many examples).

Lear.
Where have I been? Where am I?--Fair daylight,--
I am mightily abus'd.--I should e'en die with pity,
To see another thus.--I know not what to say.--
I will not swear these are my hands:--let's see;
I feel this pin prick. Would I were assur'd
Of my condition!

Translation according to SD. "I will never know what to say.

Or - in more modern language:

Luke 1:34 (RSV)
And Mary said to the angel, "How shall this be, since I have no husband?"

Does "I have . . ." mean "I will never have . . ."? Did Mary ever have a husband?

[SoothingDave]

according to SD. "I will never know what to say.

I agree. :-)

SD

[OLD REGGIE]

(Reg) according to SD. "I will never know what to say.

I agree. :-)

King Lear! King Lear!

Neither SD or OR will ever fit that category. We may not know what to say but we'll say something. :-)

[SoothingDave]

A horse a horse! My kingdom for a horse!

(oops, wrong Shakespeare king.)

SD

[RobbyS]

If you read the story again you will see that Joseph was fleeing from an assassination attempt by the soldiers of King Herod. Then, after hearing of Herod's death, he returned home but he took the mother and child into Galilee (to a safer place than Judea). Just your plain and ordinary family experience.

[Sir_Ed]

I believe in the Virgin Birth, but don't believe in The Assumption of Mary, The Immaculate Conception of Mary (says she was born sinless, didn't need salvation because she was sinless) or the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.

It's why I could never become a Catholic, even though I have such respect for it outside of those doctrines...

Ed

[SoothingDave]

The Immaculate Conception of Mary (says she was born sinless, didn't need salvation because she was sinless)

It says no such thing. She was saved before the fact, not after. She has as much need for a Savior as any other human.

Please, disbelieve in our teachings if you will, but know what they are before you reject them.

SD

[Hermann the Cherusker]

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

Rather than the Twelve Tribes, a Christian would see the Twelve Apostles. Mary being their Queen, since Jesus was their King, and she His mother. "All these were persevering with one mind in prayer with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren." (Acts 1.14).

The dragon's persecution and homicidal pursuit of the woman (anti-semitism) vss. 13, 15

Anti-semitism? Are you serious? A song is breaking out ... my Bologna has a first name, its J-U-D-A-I-S-M ...

"And thou art blasphemed by them that say they are Jews and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan." (Revelation 2.9)

Jesus in the Gospels, too, solemnly informs us that the Jews are children of the Devil, because they reject Him, and thus reject God the Father. "You are of your father the devil: and the desires of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning: and he stood not in the truth, because truth is not in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof." (John 8.44)

Why would you claim Satan would pursue those who are already his, who form "the Synagogue of Satan"? Are you sure you are really a Christian?

"And the dragon was angry against the woman: and went to make war with the rest of her seed, who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ." (Revelations 12.17). Compare to "I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel." (Genesis 3.15).

Can't you see the parallel here?

The entire passage is an allegory on the Nativity, Crucifixion, Resurrection, and Ascension of Christ, as well as the aftermath, the persecution of the Church and the martyrdom of the faithful. Who gave birth to Christ? Blessed Mary, not Israel.

[RobbyS]

One distinction between Catholic and Protestant theoogy that sometimes escapes notice is the emphasis on the fact of the Incarnation. The supreme act of Jesus's life was the sacrifice on the cross, but his whole life--not just that moment--was redemptive.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

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.

Where are these "Missionary/Evangelist teams" in a Scripture that talks only of Bishops, Presbyters (Priests - look up the derivation), and Deacons?

And have you forgotten the Old Testament? "Then he opened their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures." (Luke 24.45). Surely, the Apostles their fellow members of the hierarchy would have used the widespread availability of the Septuagint to explain the faith to them as well? How could this not be a comprehensive picture of Christ? Are you claiming their preaching was lacking?

[Hermann the Cherusker]

... corresponds best with Israel, ... who, though JESUS has ascended, ... still face an otherwise irrational persecution even to this day.

Israel is the Church, the congregation of the faithful of the Hebrews, and the converts of the Gentiles. See Romans 11, John 8, etc. You blaspheme by giving that term to the modern Jews, who are wholly underserving of it (see Revelations 2.9)

Persecuted in heaven ... how would that be ?

By sacrilegious Protestants such as yourself who deny her perogatives and holiness and call her place in the economy of salvation into question and deny the usefulness of having recourse to her prayers. That's how Blessed Mary is persecuted in heaven.