Q: Since Matthew 1:25 says that Joseph knew not Mary till Jesus was born, doesnt this imply that Joseph and Mary did know each other, sexually, sometime after Jesus was born?
A: It looks that way to me. There seems to be little other reason to write a sentence like this other than to mean something like that. Surely Joseph did not "know" Mary immediately after Jesus was born, but I think that when the time was right and she was ritually pure and so forth, they had normal sexual relations as husband and wife.
On the other hand, there is a case in Second Samuel 6:23 which states that Michal, Sauls daughter who was married to David, was childless until the day of her death. This is sometimes used as part of a case for interpreting Matthew 1:25 to mean that until does not always imply the commencement of the act mentioned. To me, theres an obvious connotative difference between the two statements. In Michal's, obviously her ability to have children permanently ended when she died. But in the case of Joseph and Mary, their opportunity to enjoy normal marital relations did not permanently cease when she gave birth to Jesus.
An English translation of an early defense of the doctrine of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, written by none other than Jerome, the translator of the Vulgate, is available at www.newadvent.org/fathers/3007.htm . Jerome discusses Matthew 1:25 in part 6. He proposes, on grounds similar to the ones I just mentioned, that Matthew 1:25 does not imply that Mary and Joseph had intercourse.
Jeromes argument is kept alive by a consistent confusion of commentary and narrative. For instance, the phrase, No one /to this day/ knows where Moses is buried is used as part of Jeromes case that since /that/ does not mean that no one today knows where Moses is buried, likewise Matthew 1:25 doesnt mean that until implies commencement. However, that expression is simply a comment; it is not a component of the account of past events. Matthew 1:25 is, however, part of the narrative.
Jerome also resorted to caricaturing his opponents position, by saying that Helvidius view required one to believe that Joseph had intercourse with Mary right after she gave birth to Jesus (which would be contrary to the Law of Moses).
Also, in the course of avoiding the admission that Jesus brothers were the offspring of Mary, Jerome insisted that the Mary who is described as the mother of James the less was the wife of Alphaeus and sister of Mary the Lord's mother, the one who is called by John the Evangelist "Mary of Clopas," whether after her father, or kindred, or for some other reason. Apparently Jerome did not have a problem picturing two sisters with the same name.
At www.totustuus.com/virgin.htm , theres a well-arranged essay by Jim Seghers that features most of the components in a traditional Roman Catholic case for the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. It shows how one can find a way to interpret Matthew 1:25 and some other passages in a way that does not detract from the doctrine of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. And, hey, if one wants to believe that Mary was perpetually a virgin -- that she did not have sexual relations with Joseph at all, and that her body miraculously remained virgin before, during, and after the birth of Jesus (yes, this /is/ a component of the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary -- see the informed essay at www.udayton.edu/mary/mariandogmas.html for details), I suppose one can do that and still be a Christian, just as one can believe that Marys middle name was Hephzibah and that she had hazel eyes. But is there really Biblical support for such a belief? No. One has to ask: if Matthew had wished to promote the doctrine of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, why would he have written a statement like Matthew 1:25? My answer: /He wouldnt./
The tradition that Jerome defended became more and more prevalent after the fourth century, as monasticism became more and more popular. However, the second-century bishop Irenaeus -- in Book III, ch. 21, part 10 of Against Heresies which can be read at www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103321.htm and other online locations -- compared the virginity of Mary when Christ was conceived/implanted in her womb to the virginity of the soil from which Adam was created (i.e., it was as yet virgin soil, which was later tilled). Tertullian, slightly later, used almost exactly the same approach in the long essay On the Flesh of Christ," which can be read at www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF...f03-39.htm . Jerome well knew that Tertullian disagreed with his view of Marys perpetual virginity. The further we get from the apostles, the closer we get to the over-exaltation of Mary and the promotion of the celibacy of church-leaders. And the closer we get to the apostles, the closer we get to the default understanding that Mary and Joseph experienced normal married life (and the teaching that elders and deacons ought to be faithful husbands of one wife) an interpretation which would never be brought into question, I believe, if not for the sustained effort to perpetuate a cherished but unBiblical and unnecessary tradition.
Yours in Christ,
Waterrock
A: It looks that way to me. There seems to be little other reason to write a sentence like this other than to mean something like that. Surely Joseph did not "know" Mary immediately after Jesus was born, but I think that when the time was right and she was ritually pure and so forth, they had normal sexual relations as husband and wife.
On the other hand, there is a case in Second Samuel 6:23 which states that Michal, Sauls daughter who was married to David, was childless until the day of her death. This is sometimes used as part of a case for interpreting Matthew 1:25 to mean that until does not always imply the commencement of the act mentioned. To me, theres an obvious connotative difference between the two statements. In Michal's, obviously her ability to have children permanently ended when she died. But in the case of Joseph and Mary, their opportunity to enjoy normal marital relations did not permanently cease when she gave birth to Jesus.
An English translation of an early defense of the doctrine of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, written by none other than Jerome, the translator of the Vulgate, is available at www.newadvent.org/fathers/3007.htm . Jerome discusses Matthew 1:25 in part 6. He proposes, on grounds similar to the ones I just mentioned, that Matthew 1:25 does not imply that Mary and Joseph had intercourse.
Jeromes argument is kept alive by a consistent confusion of commentary and narrative. For instance, the phrase, No one /to this day/ knows where Moses is buried is used as part of Jeromes case that since /that/ does not mean that no one today knows where Moses is buried, likewise Matthew 1:25 doesnt mean that until implies commencement. However, that expression is simply a comment; it is not a component of the account of past events. Matthew 1:25 is, however, part of the narrative.
Jerome also resorted to caricaturing his opponents position, by saying that Helvidius view required one to believe that Joseph had intercourse with Mary right after she gave birth to Jesus (which would be contrary to the Law of Moses).
Also, in the course of avoiding the admission that Jesus brothers were the offspring of Mary, Jerome insisted that the Mary who is described as the mother of James the less was the wife of Alphaeus and sister of Mary the Lord's mother, the one who is called by John the Evangelist "Mary of Clopas," whether after her father, or kindred, or for some other reason. Apparently Jerome did not have a problem picturing two sisters with the same name.
At www.totustuus.com/virgin.htm , theres a well-arranged essay by Jim Seghers that features most of the components in a traditional Roman Catholic case for the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. It shows how one can find a way to interpret Matthew 1:25 and some other passages in a way that does not detract from the doctrine of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. And, hey, if one wants to believe that Mary was perpetually a virgin -- that she did not have sexual relations with Joseph at all, and that her body miraculously remained virgin before, during, and after the birth of Jesus (yes, this /is/ a component of the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary -- see the informed essay at www.udayton.edu/mary/mariandogmas.html for details), I suppose one can do that and still be a Christian, just as one can believe that Marys middle name was Hephzibah and that she had hazel eyes. But is there really Biblical support for such a belief? No. One has to ask: if Matthew had wished to promote the doctrine of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, why would he have written a statement like Matthew 1:25? My answer: /He wouldnt./
The tradition that Jerome defended became more and more prevalent after the fourth century, as monasticism became more and more popular. However, the second-century bishop Irenaeus -- in Book III, ch. 21, part 10 of Against Heresies which can be read at www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103321.htm and other online locations -- compared the virginity of Mary when Christ was conceived/implanted in her womb to the virginity of the soil from which Adam was created (i.e., it was as yet virgin soil, which was later tilled). Tertullian, slightly later, used almost exactly the same approach in the long essay On the Flesh of Christ," which can be read at www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF...f03-39.htm . Jerome well knew that Tertullian disagreed with his view of Marys perpetual virginity. The further we get from the apostles, the closer we get to the over-exaltation of Mary and the promotion of the celibacy of church-leaders. And the closer we get to the apostles, the closer we get to the default understanding that Mary and Joseph experienced normal married life (and the teaching that elders and deacons ought to be faithful husbands of one wife) an interpretation which would never be brought into question, I believe, if not for the sustained effort to perpetuate a cherished but unBiblical and unnecessary tradition.
Yours in Christ,
Waterrock
