He knew her not until she bore her son (Mt1:25)

  • Thread starter Thread starter nguyencongbinh
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
N

nguyencongbinh

Guest
**And he knew her not until she bore her son (Mt1:25)
**
**ISSUE: **

For many centuries Mt1: 25 has been numbered, cited and read apart from Mt 1:24 as follows AND HE KNEW HER NOT as the main clause and UNTIL SHE BORE HER SON as the adverb clause; and then *HE NAMED HIM JESUS *as an independent sentence.

Whether or not Matthew raised an issue causing the Protestants to ridicule the Catholic belief that Mary Always Remain Pure because there is a doubt about the period of time after the birth of The Lord as created by Mt1:25; and that based on other Matthew’s account, Mary and Joseph even had many other offspring as named in the Bible.

The issue poses controversial discussions. To many many Catholics, it’s better not to talk about the subject because it’s a dogma and everyone so believed but the monster named UNTIL, Heos hou in Greek is still there.
This thread is open in good faith so that all can join.

MY FINDING & BELIEF:
AND2 MARY EVER AND ALWAYS REMAINED PURE

In the NOVA VULGATA, The New Vulgate of The Catholic Church, *AND HE KNEW HER NOT *(literally AND2 HE WAS NEVER SEXUALLY KNOWING HER) was proven to be an independent sentence by Pope John Paul II. Mary Ever Remained Pure was shown by John Paul as a true and historical fact declared by Matthew. Is it a surprise? Yes but It’s only a matter of grammar. I am ready to prove that Nova Vulgata is grammatically faithful to the original Greek Kata Matthaion’s syntax. May I repeat here the 1979 Nova’s text

Mt1:24 Exsurgens autem Ioseph a somno fecit,
sicut praecepit ei angelus Domini,
et accepit coniugem suam; (a pause here)
**Mt1:25 et non cognoscebat eam, (a pause here)
donec peperit filium, et vocavit nomen eius Iesum. **
(www.vatican.va)

Literal meaning by word order:
Rising up in deed Joseph from darkness he did,
as instructed to him the angel of The Lord,
and1 he took/received the wife of him (P4 semicolon- pause)
and2 he was not knowing her (P2-coma- pause)
Until the true time she delivered the Son, and3 he called/proclaimed his name Jesus

PLEASE STOP BEING MISLED BY THE OLD VERSIONS

Don’t blame the Protestants. The former Clementine Vulgate, the former Catholic official text was provided us as follows: Clementina 1861 (scanned page 641 from www.sacredbible.org/vulgate1861/index.htm)
**24 Exsurgens autem Ioseph a somno fecit, sicut praecepit ei angelus Domini et accepit coniugem suam. (**period) 24 When Joseph awoke, he did as the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took his wife into his home (period).
A period ends a declarative sentence. Of course, I stopped here because of the period. The statement is complete; it seems there is no relation between 24 and 25. Joseph obeyed God to take Mary as his wife. That’s it. Then I uninterruptedly read the new verse:
25 Et non cognoscebat eam donec peperit filium suum primogenitum: (column) **et vocavit nomen eius Iesum. **25 *And he knew her not until she bore her firstborn son, * One more pause here with the column- the statement is done- I was not given even a second to think but to accept what was said. I was lost. The issue of her Purity came back to my mind without a clear answer. I was thinking of the many years they lived together as husband and wife. For many years I had understood that ***UNTIL did not mean UNTIL but something else ***based on some prominent commentator’s opinions. It was necessary to me in doing so but I had never been completely satisfied because those opinions did never come from any pope blessed with the gift of committing no error in reading the Bible. There is a reason for the Protestants to grammatically claim ***UNTIL **meant UNTIL; and Mary’s Purity was a Catholic made dogma never supported by any verses in the Bible because it could be inferred that many brothers and sisters of Jesus were named by Matthew *
Grammar and punctuations marks are necessary for us to read all codes and laws- and the Bible, too- I don’t like half truth. I wanted the whole truth and nothing but the truth. By connecting both verses Mt1:24 and Mt1:25 together and by placing a pause before DONEC – UNTIL Pope John Paul has corrected the grammar error found in Clementine Vulgate and all other versions – Catholic and non-Catholic included and released us from all misunderstandings.
**Grammatically Mt1:25A was intended by Matthew as an independent sentence that clearly confirmed The Purity Of The Blessed Mother **

Due to the limit of each post - please continue with part 2
 
Please listen to John Paul: **Mt1:25 et non cognoscebat eam, (a pause here) **Joseph was never sexually knowing Mary,
We used to read **And he knew her not **(perfect tense). The first century Christians understood the imperfect tense showed the clock time relation as well as the aspect relation of the imperfective action. It’s easier for me to read **kai2 ouk(eti) eginosken auten - et non cognoscebat eam **as **AND2 MARY EVER REMAINED PURE **

Nova Vulgata was published in 1979 but until now – some devout Catholics- still flatly rejected it because of many reasons, probably because of the sentiments attached to the Old Clementine Vulgate, or by denying the whole Vatican II as the gift of The Holy Spirit, or just too proud to claim that their version to be to most correct one.
Nova Vulgata was also declared **editio typica **– the master copy – the official text of the Church in 1979 but some Catholics still read Mt1:24 and Mt1:25 in the OLD WAY. I want to cite one example from the Catholic One Year Bible

**24 When Joseph awoke, he did as the angel commanded, and brought Mary home to be his wife,
25 but she remained a virgin until her Son was born;
and Joseph named him “Jesus”
**
Is the 1987 Catholic One Year Bible a Catholic edition? YES, it was approved, nihil obstated and imprimatured by the Fort Way-South Bend diocese. How many Catholics have read such statement? Is it still in use? It’s so Catholic so must I apply here the rubber stamp ‘This Is The Word Of The Lord’? May I repeat that Nova Vulgata was given us in 1979 but I am not happy because the said Catholic version was approved and printed in 1987. It just faithfully followed the literal meaning and syntax provided by the Clementina 1861 : Joseph had no sexual relations with Mary as the main clause and until she gave birth to her son the adverb clause. The above editors just avoided to repeat the Old English by boldly applying the 20th century plain English negating Mary’s purity. Catholic Imprimatur was given but did Matthew truly mean it?
My late father told me a good story: After visiting the land, the turtle returned to the sea telling the fish about the beautiful life on land but could not convince them to fully understand since the fish kept thinking the blue sky, humans, animal and plants should all be surrounded with water. In California, wrongful defamation of a woman’s chastity is a serious tort and there is no defense unless the fact clearly proven. The Buddha’s parable taught me to restrain myself from all guess work because by assuming nonexistent facts or by misquoting or mistranslating Matthew, I will be guilty of maliciously defaming Matthew, Joseph and the Blessed Mother, Her Son Jesus and The Holy Spirit, Our Salvation Programmer. Married couples having children should be considered a noble act intended by God but was it the true fact recorded by Matthew or *are we shaping the holy couple on our bed forcing her to lose her virginity? *St Paul, St, John, John Paul II, mother Teresa, countless priests and nuns … could have converted their instinctual libido into psychic energy by accepting not to be married but joyfully sacrificed their whole lives for the Good News; many Buddhist monks and nuns did the same in tirelessly devoting their dignified lives for their holy and noble ideals, I wonder that those people could however, according to Catholic One Year Bible, Mary and Joseph filled with the Holy Spirit but couldn’t (?!?)
The sage Mencius (372-289 BC- Confucius’ famous disciple) after hearing for the 3rd time the false accusation that her son was a killer lost her confidence, she jumped out and destroyed her weaving loom. There is an old Vietnamese saying: Chúng khẩu đồng từ ông sư cũng chết. The mob together in one word said, even the monk can’t escape death. Without hearing directly from Matthew, it would be unfair to negate Mary’s purity even to defend it. I wanted The Truth. I believed many of you were feeling hurt with the same wound. What did Matthew want to tell me? No one wanted to be misquoted. To me, in placing our punctuation marks gradually invented in the Middle Age to any ancient text without betraying the authors’ intent and syntax is a challenging work.

To be continued with part3
 
(contin’d) The Word Of The Lord is One and Free From All Error but in speaking to humans, The Holy Spirit employed human languages and many times, we, humans could not well understand certain words because we misspelled it, omitted the necessary punctuation marks upsetting the true syntax in violation of the rules set by the authors. Here is John Paul. He came and helped us applying the proper punctuating rule to Kata Matthaion,

Can I propose a rough draft here

**Mt1:24 Joseph being enlightened (raised from darkness) by YHWH The Holy Spirit, The Healer and Comforter, immediately performed as the angel of the YHWH The Lord had instructed him as follows:

and one: he took Mary his wife carrying the Holy Child into The Family Home – pause#1
Mt1:25
and two: Mary ever remained pure (literally Joseph was never sexually knowing her) – pause#2 –
(It’s an independent sentence intended by Matthew )

At the very time (heos hou) The Divine Child was born of Mary
(as the adverb clause and the main clause is)
and three: YWHW SHUAH GOD SAVES ALL HUMAN BEINGS –HIS NAME-
Joseph did proclaim. **

John Paul followed the **IAM (Isaiah-Angel-Matthew) rule **as shown by Isa7:14, Mt1:23, Mt1:21 and Mt1:25 and THE TRUTH is restored, not with theological reasons but with a simple PAUSE created by the simple stroke of a COMA before UNTIL. I trust in Our Mother The Church and She was not wrong.

That is my finding and I would like to share to all. I learned this forum has been joined by many non-Catholic friends

INVITATION TO DISCUSS

Believing that In The Scriptures We Find The Truth can you accept to grammatically read Mt 1:25 as John Paul did and agree that AND HE WAS NEVER KNOWING HER as an independent sentence?

Is it proper for us to modify the imperfect tense of Matthew AND2 HE WAS NEVER KNOWING HER into the perfect tense AND HE KNEW HER NOT?

Was it a fact Matthew placed a silent pause before the word UNTIL and John Paul in his Nova Vulgata translated it into a pause with a coma?

And was it a fact that Matthew declared AND TWO HE WAS NEVER KNOWING HER in order to affirm Mary’s Purity (virginity) since we can, by avoiding the archaic imperfect tense to read it as AND2 MARY EVER REMAINED PURE.

And most of all whether AND AT THE VERY TIME THE SOME WAS BORN OF MARY the adverb clause of AND THREE HE PROCLAIMED HIS NAME (YESHUA (YHWH+SHUA God Saves All Human Beings) JESUS ?

And that was it clear that Isaiah so intended The Birth of The Savior through His Pure Mother AND The Proclamation of His Name ? Therefore Matthew clearly stated that At the very time (heos hou) Jesus was born, Joseph did joyfully proclaim His Name- Our Salvation?

Following Matthew’s grammar and syntax, and The Truth, John Paul applied some necessary punctuating marks for his flock to correctly read the Bible with grammar. I wholeheartedly agree to and I took my pen and I placed a pause - a coma before the word UNTIL in my New Testament. . Nguyen Cong Binh
 
Hello nguyencongbinh.
This is essentially your third thread on this topic. I do not believe many Catholics reject the teaching. I have never met a Catholic who does not believe in Mary’s perpetual virginity. There could be so many more topics to discuss as you are deeply studying Scipture.
We Catholics believe Mary remained ever virgin.
 
Message well received. Thanks
P.S. Don’t read the Catholic One Year Bible
 
Thank you for the scriptural clarification. I may find it helpful with non Catholics that like to argue Mt 1.
 
To Kathleen-
Thanks for your patience in reading. We must all give thanks to John Paul. I just discovered Nova Vulgata about 2 years ago.
I shared my findings with some Protestants friends and also asked them to read in parallel the following editions, Protestants they were but they all followed the first Clementine Vulgate of 1592 and Robert Estienne Stephanus of the 16th century, in placing a pause before UNTIL, too with their comas.
  1. Rev. Martin Luther 1545 www.bibledbdata.org/onlinebibles/german
  2. Geneva 1560 reactor-core.org/geneva/geneva-0956.html -
    3.Tyndale-1534 4. Coverdale-1535 5. Bishops-1568 6. Old King James 1611
    www.faithofgod.net/NTcompare /Matthew.htm
    There was however a minor error in the above editions in thinking that Mt1:24 should be read apart from Mt1:25.John Paul with his Nova has corrected that error with a semicolon
In the reprint of 1861 of the Clementine Vulgate - The Church’s Official Text- , the coma before UNTIL disappeared because of unknown reasons, probably because they felt the Vugata printed by Gutenberg to be the correct one; and all non Catholic editions also dropped them out. We then received many translations based on the misprint. The controversial confusion started because all people innocently believed we should cite and read Mt1:25 alone and apart from Mt1:24. The doubt about Our Blessed Mother’s Purity was raised - UNTIL( Heos Hou that meant at the very true time) became a controversial word-. Even some Catholics started to reason that the dogma should be re-stated.The new pause added by John Paul was only a restoration of the pause created by a silent mark intended by Matthew

After John Paul has made such corrections, based on simple grammar rules, restoring the true syntax to Mt 1:24 and Mt1:25, the matter becomes now so grammatically clear. I found no one questioning about such grammatical changes/restoration.

Please note that the pope who initiated Nova was then pope Paul VI and one member of the Nova pontifical commission was then cardinal Ratzinger- now pope Bededict. They all should be thanked for their contribution for the Great Book. NguyenCongBinh
 
I want to thank you NguyenCongBinh for sharing this with us.

I often have this discussion with protestant co-workers and really didn’t have much to reply with regarding this portion of Scripture except to use quotes from St. Jerome and St. Augustine to enhance my belief.

There is a lot to remember in this, but the knowledge is priceless and will go a long way in helping me explain Mary’s perpetual virginity.

Thank you again.👍
With love,
George
 
Thanks for this. I was reading the book of Mathew in the King James Bible and came across this line and was a bit puzzled. Your posts clarified matters.

God Bless 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top