The Church Fathers- Mary: Ever Virgin

“And behold, an angel of the Lord stood by [St. Anne], saying, ‘Anne! Anne! The Lord has heard your prayer, and you shall conceive and shall bring forth, and your seed shall be spoken of in all the world.’ And Anne said, ‘As the Lord my God lives, if I beget either male or female, I will bring it as a gift to the Lord my God, and it shall minister to him in the holy things all the days of its life.’ . . . And [from the time she was three] Mary was in the temple of the Lord as if she were a dove that dwelt there” (Protoevangelium of James 4, 7 [A.D. 120]).

“And when she was twelve years old there was held a council of priests, saying, ‘Behold, Mary has reached the age of twelve years in the temple of the Lord. What then shall we do with her, lest perchance she defile the sanctuary of the Lord?’ And they said to the high priest, ‘You stand by the altar of the Lord; go in and pray concerning her, and whatever the Lord shall manifest to you, that also will we do.’ . . . [A]nd he prayed concerning her, and behold, an angel of the Lord stood by him saying, ‘Zechariah! Zechariah! Go out and assemble the widowers of the people and let them bring each his rod, and to whomsoever the Lord shall show a sign, his wife shall she be. . . . And Joseph [was chosen]. . . . And the priest said to Joseph, ‘You have been chosen by lot to take into your keeping the Virgin of the Lord.’ But Joseph refused, saying, ‘I have children, and I am an old man, and she is a young girl’” (ibid., 8–9).

“And Annas the scribe came to him [Joseph] . . . and saw that Mary was with child. And he ran away to the priest and said to him, ‘Joseph, whom you did vouch for, has committed a grievous crime.’ And the priest said, ‘How so?’ And he said, ‘He has defiled the virgin whom he received out of the temple of the Lord and has married her by stealth’” (ibid., 15).

“And the priest said, ‘Mary, why have you done this? And why have you brought your soul low and forgotten the Lord your God?’ . . . And she wept bitterly saying, ‘As the Lord my God lives, I am pure before him, and know not man’” (ibid.).

“The Book [the Protoevangelium] of James [records] that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honor of Mary in virginity to the end, so that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word . . . might not know intercourse with a man after the Holy Spirit came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the firstfruit among men of the purity which consists in [perpetual] chastity, and Mary was among women. For it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the firstfruit of virginity” (Commentary on Matthew 2:17 [A.D. 248]).

“If they [the brethren of the Lord] had been Mary’s sons and not those taken from Joseph’s former marriage, she would never have been given over in the moment of the passion [crucifixion] to the apostle John as his mother, the Lord saying to each, ‘Woman, behold your son,’ and to John, ‘Behold your mother’ [John 19:26–27), as he bequeathed filial love to a disciple as a consolation to the one desolate" (Commentary on Matthew 1:4 [A.D. 354]).

“Let those, therefore, who deny that the Son is by nature from the Father and proper to his essence deny also that he took true human flesh from the ever-virgin Mary” (Discourses Against the Arians 2:70 [A.D. 360]).

“We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of all things, both visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God . . . who for us men and for our salvation came down and took flesh, that is, was born perfectly of the holy ever-virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit” (The Man Well-Anchored 120 [A.D. 374]).

“And to holy Mary, [the title] ‘Virgin’ is invariably added, for that holy woman remains undefiled” (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 78:6 [A.D. 375]).

“[Helvidius] produces Tertullian as a witness [to his view] and quotes Victorinus, bishop of Petavium. Of Tertullian, I say no more than that he did not belong to the Church. But as regards Victorinus, I assert what has already been proven from the gospel—that he [Victorinus] spoke of the brethren of the Lord not as being sons of Mary but brethren in the sense I have explained, that is to say, brethren in point of kinship, not by nature. [By discussing such things we] are . . . following the tiny streams of opinion. Might I not array against you the whole series of ancient writers? Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, and many other apostolic and eloquent men, who against [the heretics] Ebion, Theodotus of Byzantium, and Valentinus, held these same views and wrote volumes replete with wisdom. If you had ever read what they wrote, you would be a wiser man” (Against Helvidius: The Perpetual Virginity of Mary 19 [A.D. 383]).

“We believe that God was born of a virgin, because we read it. We do not believe that Mary was married after she brought forth her Son, because we do not read it. . . . You [Helvidius] say that Mary did not remain a virgin. As for myself, I claim that Joseph himself was a virgin, through Mary, so that a virgin Son might be born of a virginal wedlock” (ibid., 21).

“It helps us to understand the terms ‘first-born’ and ‘only-begotten’ when the Evangelist tells that Mary remained a virgin ‘until she brought forth her first-born son’ [Matt. 1:25]; for neither did Mary, who is to be honored and praised above all others, marry anyone else, nor did she ever become the Mother of anyone else, but even after childbirth she remained always and forever an immaculate virgin” (The Trinity 3:4 [A.D. 386]).

“Imitate her [Mary], holy mothers, who in her only dearly beloved Son set forth so great an example of material virtue; for neither have you sweeter children [than Jesus], nor did the Virgin seek the consolation of being able to bear another son” (Letters 63:111 [A.D. 388]).

“You had good reason to be horrified at the thought that another birth might issue from the same virginal womb from which Christ was born according to the flesh. For the Lord Jesus would never have chosen to be born of a virgin if he had ever judged that she would be so incontinent as to contaminate with the seed of human intercourse the birthplace of the Lord’s body, that court of the eternal king” (Letter to Bishop Anysius [A.D. 392]).

“In being born of a Virgin who chose to remain a Virgin even before she knew who was to be born of her, Christ wanted to approve virginity rather than to impose it. And he wanted virginity to be of free choice even in that woman in whom he took upon himself the form of a slave” (Holy Virginity 4:4 [A.D. 401]).

“It was not the visible sun, but its invisible Creator who consecrated this day for us, when the Virgin Mother, fertile of womb and integral in her virginity, brought him forth, made visible for us, by whom, when he was invisible, she too was created. A Virgin conceiving, a Virgin bearing, a Virgin pregnant, a Virgin bringing forth, a Virgin perpetual. Why do you wonder at this, O man?” (Sermons 186:1 [A.D. 411]).

“Heretics called Antidicomarites are those who contradict the perpetual virginity of Mary and affirm that after Christ was born she was joined as one with her husband” (Heresies 56 [A.D. 428]).

“We confess, therefore, that our Lord and God, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, born of the Father before the ages, and in times most recent, made man of the Holy Spirit and the ever-virgin Mary” (Document of Amendment 3 [A.D. 426]).

“[T]he Word himself, coming into the Blessed Virgin herself, assumed for himself his own temple from the substance of the Virgin and came forth from her a man in all that could be externally discerned, while interiorly he was true God. Therefore he kept his Mother a virgin even after her childbearing” (Against Those Who Do Not Wish to Confess That the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God 4 [A.D. 430]).

“His [Christ’s] origin is different, but his [human] nature is the same. Human usage and custom were lacking, but by divine power a Virgin conceived, a Virgin bore, and Virgin she remained” (Sermons 22:2 [A.D. 450]).

I think you weaken your case significantly when you lead off with your first quote:

The document presents itself as written by James: "I, James, wrote this history in Jerusalem."-XXV[3] Thus the purported author is James the Just, whom the text claims is a son of Joseph from a prior marriage, and thus a stepbrother of Jesus.
Scholars have established that, based on the style of the language and the fact that the author is not aware of contemporary Jewish customs, while the historical James the Just certainly was, the work is pseudepigraphical (not written by the person it is attributed to).[4] For instance the work suggests there were consecrated temple virgins in Judaism, as with Vestal Virgins in pagan Rome(!), but this is spurious. Celibacy has played little role in Judaism, in which marriage and raising children are understood as holy obligations.[5]
The consensus is that it was actually composed some time in the 2nd century AD. The first mention of it is by Origen of Alexandria in the early 3rd century, who says the text, like that of a "Gospel of Peter", was of dubious, recent appearance and shared with that book the claim that the 'brethren of the Lord' were sons of Joseph by a former wife.[6]
Wiki

That said, don't you think it is surprising that if the FIRST generation Church believed Mary remained a virgin, it would have been written by a Christian somewhere during the first hundred years?

If this was part of God's design and was so crucial to our understanding of Mary, why isn't it in the New Testament?

As such, I have to conclude the issue rests on an argument from silence, that later became a doctrine of the Church and should be rejected. It is unnecessary to the work of Christ. It seems to me it only tries to exalt Mary into something she was not, instead of rejoicing in all God proclaimed about her.

Generally, Protestants make too little of Mary, violating the Scriptures. Catholics make too much of Mary, violating the Scriptures. Both have good intent. Both are wrong to do so.

Some more fraudulent nonsense.

From the same work:

“Then said Salome: As the Lord my God liveth, unless I thrust in my finger, and search the parts, I will not believe that a virgin has brought forth.

20. And the midwife went in, and said to Mary: Show thyself; for no small controversy has arisen about thee. And Salome put in her finger, and cried out, and said: Woe is me for mine iniquity and mine unbelief, because I have tempted the living God; and, behold, my hand is dropping off as if burned with fire. And she bent her knees before the Lord, saying: O God of my fathers, remember that I am the seed of Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob; do not make a show of me to the sons of Israel, but restore me to the poor; for Thou knowest, O Lord, that in Thy name I have performed my services, and that I have received my reward at Thy hand. And, behold, an angel of the Lord stood by her, saying to her: Salome, Salome, the Lord hath heard thee. Put thy hand to the infant, and carry it, and thou wilt have safety and joy. And Salome went and carried it, saying: I will worship Him, because a great King has been born to Israel. And, behold, Salome was immediately cured, and she went forth out of the cave justified. And behold a voice saying: Salome, Salome, tell not the strange things thou hast seen, until the child has come into Jerusalem.”
(www.earlychristianwritings.com)

What is unambiguous is that you are not actually referencing what ancient languages mean. You are using ENGLISH. “Until” or “til” in ancient languages did not have the nuance you give it.

This has been proved here at FR countless times. Here is an example from 2003:

Before I proceed, again, let me explain why this is important. Eric Svendsen claims that the use of “heos hou” in Matthew 1:25 (which is translated by the English word “until” in the sentence “...he knew her not until she bore a son”), is a special Greek phrase that terminates the action of the main clause “knew her not.” In other words, Svendsen claims that Joseph’s state of “not knowing Mary” terminated at the point when Mary bore Jesus, which means that Mary, according to Svendsen, had sexual relations with Joseph after Jesus was born. Svendsen makes this claim because, as he has continually boasted over the last few years, EVERY reference to “heos hou” in the time period under discussion (100 B. C. to 100 A.D.) shows that “heos hou” terminates that action of the main clause, never continues it. If “heos hou” continued the action of the main clause, then it would mean Joseph’s “not knowing Mary” would continue beyond the birth of Jesus, which would mean that Joseph and Mary never had sexual relations.

As a side note, Svendsen admits that the Greek word “heos” (“until”), used by itself, can either terminate or continue the action of the main clause. But it is his contention that when “heos” is coupled with “hou” in the phrase “heos hou” in the period under discussion, it NEVER continues the action of the main clause. He admits that prior to and after the period of 100 B.C to 100 A.D. “heos hou” was sometimes used to continue the action of the main clause, but that for some reason (which he never really explains) the meaning of “heos hou” which allowed a continuation of the main clause suddenly dropped out of existence. It just so happens that Matthew’s gospel was written in this particular time period.

Now, let me continue with the November 18th debate. As I stated above, Mr. Matatics provided a reference, between the years of 100 B.C. and 100 A.D, in which “heos hou” continued the action of the main verb. Here is the reference he gave:

And Aseneth was left alone with the seven virgins, and she continued to be weighed down and weep UNTIL the sun set. And she ate no bread and drank no water. And the night fell, and all (people) in the house slept, and she alone was awake and continued to brood and to weep; and she often struck her breast with (her) hand and kept being filled with great fear and trembled (with) heavy trembling.
First, the reference for this comes from the work of C. Burchard, in the story titled “Joseph and Aseneth,” which is found in the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Vol. 2, Expansions of the Old Testament and Legends, Wisdom and Philosophical Literature, Prayers, Psalms, and Odes, Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works, ed. James H.Charlesworth, p. 215. New York: Doubleday, 1985.

Second, the word “UNTIL” in the clause “weep UNTIL the sun set” is the Greek phrase “heos hou.” You will notice if you read the sentence in context that Aseneth cried until the sun went down, but she continued to cry way into the night when everyone else was asleep. Here we have a classic case of “heos hou” continuing the action of the main clause, for the context itself tells us there is no other possibility. There are only two available choices: either “heos hou” terminates the action of the main clause, or continues it. It certainly does not terminate it in this incident, otherwise, Aseneth would have stopped crying and not continued when the sun set.

Thus, Mr. Matatics, in one fell swoop, has discredited the whole thesis of Eric Svendsen (which is the essence of the whole debate on November 18, if you were listening carefully). Svendsen had boasted that there were no such references to “heos hou” continuing the action of the main verb. He knew that if his opponents found just ONE reference that contradicted his boast, Svendsen’s entire argument would fall like a house of cards. Opponents didn’t need a dozen references. They only needed one, and that one reference would be the magic bullet. It is the magic bullet that totally discredits Svendsen’s entire doctoral dissertation, for the whole dissertation essentially boils down to the meaning of “heos hou” in the time period under discussion. If you were listening closely to the debate, it was at this point that Svendsen grew conspicuously quiet in the debate, and didn’t raise his voice again until near the end by trying to capitalize on a point that James White was challenging of Matatics.

Sensing that Matatics shot that magic bullet into the heart of Svendsen at 7:55 pm, James White went into his famous misdirection tactic. As soon as White realized that Matatics provided the needed reference to discredit the whole “heos hou” thesis of Svendsen, and noticed that Svendsen did not have an answer for Matatics, White then asked Gerry: “Does the New Testament have any such examples?”

Now, let me tell you what White’s question really means. It means that White either doesn’t know the essence of Svendsen’s thesis, or, he indeed does know it, but tried to cover for Svendsen. Svendsen’s thesis, as I stated above, is that in NON New Testament writings, between the dates of 100 B.C and 100 A.D, there is no usage of “heos hou” which continues the main clause of a Greek sentence. Since White couldn’t argue against the evidence Matatics provided of a Non New Testament source using “heos hou” to continue the action, White quickly jumped to the New Testament and asserted to Matatics that if he couldn’t find such a usage in the New Testament then Matatics’s argument was invalid.

Eric Svendsen should be ashamed, and James White should apologize to Svendsen, for Svendsen’s whole thesis is that the Non New Testament literature contains no such references of “heos hou” continuing the action of the main clause. The very challenge that Svendsen has been boasting about for years, Matatics indeed answered, and White knew it, and thus White tried to misdirect the audience to think that Matatics failed unless he also showed that “heos hou” in the New Testament continued the action of the main clause. But he didn’t fail. He actually succeeded in discrediting Svendsen’s whole thesis. Any evidence Gerry would have given from the New Testament would simply have been icing on the cake.

This tactic of White’s is extremely dishonest and hypocritical, especially since he, about five minutes later, began ranting and raving at Matatics on another topic of contention, saying “Gerry, that is absolutely grossly inaccurate!” Yet White, five minutes prior, had given the audience one of the grossest ploys and coverups I have ever seen anyone attempt in an open debate.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1025045/posts

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.