Actually, people wanted to argue Hebrew and Arimaic meanings, not Greek.
And those that did try to argue Greek meanings claimed (incorrectly) that Greek had no term for âcousinâ, in direct disregard for the use of âanepsiosâ in Colossians 4:10.
Of course the Greek has a word for âcousinâ, and no Catholic apologist should claim otherwise. That is not the point at all.
Letâs reboot this discussion, shall we?
1. "Iâve never understood why Catholics claim that Mary was a virgin her entire life. The Bible says that Jesus had brothers. Matthew 13:55 settles the matter for me: âIs not this the carpenterâs son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brethren James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And are not all his sisters with us?â"
In the case of Maryâs perpetual virginity, the key to explaining Matthew 13:55 is understanding the Greek word for âbrethrenâ (
adelphoi) and its feminine counterpart (
adelphe). If the Greek words used in this passage connote only siblings, then the Catholic dogma of Maryâs perpetual virginity is false.
However, the word
adelphoi has a much broader meaning. It may refer to male relatives that one is not a descendant of and that are not descendant from one (such as a blood brother, step-brother, nephew, uncle, cousin, etc.) or non-relatives such as neighbors, fellow workers, co-religionists, and friends.
Because of this broad usage, we can be sure that the 120 âbrothersâ in Acts 1:15 did not have the same mother. Neither did Lot and his uncle Abraham, who were called âbrothersâ (Gen. 11:26-28, 29:15).
The reason relatives were called brothers or sisters was because in Hebrew, there was no word for cousin, nephew, or uncle. So the person was referred to as simply a âbrother.â Linguistically, this was far easier than calling the person the son of a motherâs sister. Since the New Testament was written in a dialect of Greek that was heavily influenced by the Semitic culture, many of the Hebrew idioms (like âbrotherâ having multiple meanings) intrude into the Greek text. So, the fact that Jesus had
adelphoi does not mean that Mary had other children.
2**.****âBut there was a Greek word for cousin,
anepsios. If the brothers of the Lord were really his cousins, why wasnât that word used?â**
Here is a common misconception to be on the lookout for: âCatholics teach that the brothers were actually cousins.â Thatâs not the Catholic position. In fact, we canât tell if any of the âbrothersâ were cousins. All the Church affirms is that they were not children of Mary. They could have been children of Joseph from a prior marriage. But the specific word for cousin (
anepsios) probably would not have been used in Matthew 13:55 unless
all the âbrothersâ were cousins. If even one of them was
not a cousin, the more general term "
adelphoi" covers the situation. Even if all of them were cousins, the term âbrotherâ could still be used by Matthew to appropriately describe them.
These things were taken for granted by the early Christians, who were familiar with the biblical languages and who knew that Mary was a lifelong virgin. In A.D. 380, Helvidius proposed that Mary had other children because of the âbrothersâ in Matthew 13:55. He was rebutted by Jerome, who was arguably the greatest biblical scholar of the day. The Protestant reformer John Calvin seconded Jerome: âHelvidius has shown himself too ignorant, in saying that Mary had several sons, because mention is made in some passages to the brothers of Christâ [quoted by Bernard Leeming, *Protestants and Our Lady, 9]
. Martin Luther agreed with Calvin that Mary was always a virgin, as did Ulrich Zwingli: âI esteem immensely the Mother of God, the ever chaste, immaculate Virgin Maryâ [E. Stakemeier, *De Mariologia et Oecumenismo, K. Balic, ed., 456].
3.
"Why is she betrothed to Joseph if she made a vow of virginity?"
Consecrated virginity was not common among first century Jews, but it did exist. According to some early Christian documents, such as the *Protoevangelium of James *(written around A.D. 120), Mary was a consecrated virgin. As such, when she reached puberty, her monthly cycle would render her ceremonially unclean and thus unable to dwell in the temple without defiling it under the Mosaic Law. At this time, she would be entrusted to a male guardian. However, since it was forbidden for a man to live with a woman he was not married or related to, the virgin would be wed to the guardian, and they would have no marital relations.
From an article by Jason Evert.
If all you get from me is a desire to think for yourself, instead of being spoon-fed what to believe
God clearly gave us a book full of various literary forms, difficult and abstract language, culture-specific idioms etc. so that we limited humans must study Greek and Hebrew, the ancient cultures and spend all our time reading the Bible to be able to start making some at least somehow sound conclusions (and even then we will still have many disagreements on many parts). While doing that he chose to ignore the fact that for two millenia most people will be unable to engage in any of these since most were illiterate. He of course us to interpret the book for ourselves to arrive to the Truth that God loves so much! 
