T
thistle
Guest
I’m curious as to why the Protoevangelium of James is being referred to. The Church does not accept it as an inspired writing.
- Status
T
TimothyH
Guest
This is a very practical and worldly way of looking at things. Good questions, but I think it is important to remember that we are discussing the Second Person of the Trinity and Mary, who is often referred to as the Spouse of the Holy Spirit.
The Holy Family did flee to Egypt shortly after Jesus’ birth. Matthew 2 states that this was at God’s command through an angel. Although Matthew 2 gives Herod’s desire to kill Jesus as the reason for fleeing, it is not impossible that there were also implications for Joseph and Mary from the Jewish community immediately after Jesus’ birth. Either way, divine protection of the Holy Family by God the Father is not out of the question.
God the Father protecting his only Son and the Mother of His Son would be consistent with a loving father’s behavior.
-Tim-
W
wynnejj
Guest
I have a simpler answer. The temple virgin story is wrong. Given the biblical reference that Mary said “How can this be, since I do not know man”, I can accept that Joseph & Mary did marry with the agreement of a chaste marriage. When Mary was with child and Joseph was deliberating to divorce her quietly, it was simply due to the fact that he did not know what his role should be, given that the child was most likely the promised Messiah. When assured by the angel, he took Mary into his home and the rest of society just assumed that it was Joseph & Mary’s child. To the community, whether a couple changed their minds about a private agreement to have a chaste marriage would be immaterial, assuming Mary was NOT a temple virgin. The TPJ was fiction.
W
wynnejj
Guest
Not sure what I’m looking for. I noted the section on betrothal and marriage. A two part process. The first part where the wife lives at home with her parents, but the mutual exclusivity rules apply with the penalty being that of adultery. The second part is where the husband and wife then live together. Also, I read at one point that the marriage contract considered it a duty to be fruitful and multiply - to choose to remain celibate would bring down judgement. I see nothing that suggest that “virgin marriage” was a custom at any point. I see nothing about temple virgins so far. Am I missing something (I’m sure I am)?
There is a lot of material in the wiki on the Essenes. Is there something specific to which you would like to draw my attention?
W
wynnejj
Guest
My opening post started with:
The article above references this material in its apologetics on the perpetual virginity of Mary. It seems to be one of the first Christian texts purporting to explain why any good contemporary of Mary would choose virginity when it was antithetical to Jewish philosophy that suggested that the proper state was marriage. Apparently there were temple virgins consecrated to service of the ‘holy of holies’.
And of course, I’m scratching my head about its authenticity or whether it is fiction with some good fact entwined, but primarily a fabrication to support the perpetual virginity of Mary which was under attack at the time and, to fill in the gaps on the dearth of information about Mary & Joseph.
W
wynnejj
Guest
It is not hard for me to accept that both Mary & Joseph had some inner sense that it was God’s will that they take a vow of chastity. However, I think that it would be contrary to the prevailing theology of the time. That is, unless you were a Levite, the belief was pretty much that one should seek the married state and have children. Look at the story of Joachim & Anne - fast 40 days and 40 nights to have children? Look at the story of Zachary & Elizabeth - how much they grieved their inability to bring forth a child? With this backdrop, Joseph & Mary were very much out of step with the Jewish community in general felt was the will of God. Nevertheless, Mary & Joseph must have had a very strong sense that they take a vow of chastity as part of their marriage commitment - rooted in obedience.
W
wynnejj
Guest
My earlier post was based on this article and the section of betrothal and marriage…
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_views_on_marriage
However, the text on the Essenes seems to show them given to asceticism, including asceticism in marriage. This seems contrary to the Jewish norm. Was Mary & Joseph thought to be of the Essene persuasion?
T
thistle
Guest
The Protoevangelium of James was written around the middle of the second century and its author is unknown.
The Church does not accept it as an inspired writing.
My problem therefore is that parts of it are used as support for certain things and we don’t need it. We know Mary was a perpetual virgin.
If we are going to use parts of it then why not all of it. It says Joseph was a widower, he had other children (which would mean Jesus had step-siblings), and that he was chosen by lots to marry Mary.
Frankly we should think of this paper as interesting but not use as support for anything. Either we use it in its entirety or not at all.
P
panevino
Guest
Who was attacking it prior TPJ?
I thought it was later
W
wynnejj
Guest
Often when I read a piece of fiction, I will learn something about the general culture and history of a people. This would be because that parts of it are true and provide the framework for the credibility and enjoyment of the story. In the TPJ, interesting tidbits would be the naming of Mary’s parents as Joachim and Anne. My understanding is that the TPJ is the first written account that Mary’s parents were Joachim & Anne. The CC seems to accept this as July 26th is their feast day, but why? Did the oral tradition support this? Probably. As to the rest, personally, I think it highly improbable per reasons I’ve stated, but not impossible.
W
wynnejj
Guest
Critical questioning of the virgin birth of Christ were brewing around the time of the TPJ. Here is a reference to the apologetics of Saint Justin around that time…
oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Virgin_Birth_of_Christ
W
wynnejj
Guest
Interesting the sense that the TPJ has of the words “How can this be, since I know not man?”…
This is how I would interpret the gospel words as well. That is, not necessarily reminding the angel that she is a consecrated virgin but, will this be accomplished by a normal marital embrace. If this is indeed the proper interpretation of the biblical passage, then Mary’s words do not necessarily attest to an existing vow of chastity. If the vow of chastity did not exist, then it is reasonable to assume that Mary & Joseph were betrothed to be married like any other Jewish couple committed to being fruitful and multiply prior to the Annunciation. Then Mary & Joseph remained perpetual virgins due to Mary becoming the new Ark of the Covenant, the Holy of Holies, of the New Testament.
P
PJM
Guest
***There are several important points to be made.
- YOUR acceptance of the Catholic Churchs TRADITION on Mary’s “Vow of Virginity” in no way cast doubts on the HIGH Probility [Tradition of Old] that it is TRUE.
- This was a rare but not an unusual practice
- Historically it is evident that God Did in a special way intercede for the AGED parents of Mary to Conceive; which would have removed a stigma imposed on sterile couples at the time who understood this to be a PUNISHMENT from God for past sins.
As too Joseph too being “ever-virgin” there too some Tradition SUGGEST that he may have had a previous marriage and was a widower?
What MUST be accepted is Mary’s perpetual Virginity done by her FREEWILL assent; and that Joseph honored Mary’s commitment.
To attempt to apply the Traditions and Laws of THOUSANDS of years ago; befoe the Church was even established is not a legitment foundation for the discussion you propose.
Even your reference to Canon 1101.2 would REQUIRE the consent of BOTH parties and of this there is not even specualtion that either Mary or Joseph desired divorce on ANY grounds, much less the speculation that Joseph was somehow fooled or forced into the marriage.
Let us not forget that HE HAD the opportunity under there current Laws to Divorce Mary and freely choose NOT to based on the MESSANGER sent from God.
God Bless you,
Pat**
W
wynnejj
Guest
"How can this be, since I know not man?"
Assuming Mary was aware that the Messiah was to be born of a Virgin, then she knew that she was the chosen virgin. So why would she say “How can this be, since I know not man?”.
My thinking was that she was in shock with the idea that she was possibly being asked to have a marital embrace with God the Father.
So she is asking how she could be asked this, when she already has fears about her readiness for her first marital embrace with a mortal man, her betrothed husband, Joseph.
(This is not much different than Our Lord asking that His Cup be taken away, but He is the Father’s Servant and will always do His Will.)
Assuming Mary was aware that the Messiah was to be born of a Virgin, then she knew that she was the chosen virgin. So why would she say “How can this be, since I know not man?”.
My thinking was that she was in shock with the idea that she was possibly being asked to have a marital embrace with God the Father.
So she is asking how she could be asked this, when she already has fears about her readiness for her first marital embrace with a mortal man, her betrothed husband, Joseph.
(This is not much different than Our Lord asking that His Cup be taken away, but He is the Father’s Servant and will always do His Will.)
W
wynnejj
Guest
- I do not contest the fact that Mary was a Perpetual Virgin.
- There is no requirement of the Catholic Church to believe that Mary took a vow of chastity from an early age or even as a condition of the marriage contract of Mary & Joseph. What is required is the fact that Mary was, in fact, a Perpetual Virgin and that Joseph did not have relations with her. All else is speculation which is open to discussion.
- I contest the interpretation of Mary’s words “How can this be, since I know not man?”, which seems to be the foundation of the traditional view that Mary & Joseph entered into the marriage contract with an additional promise of sexual abstinence.
- Canon Law 1101.2 reflects the Catholic Church’s view of the spirit of the marriage contract from the beginning of time as being ordered to an open-ness to children in the spirit of “Be fruitful and multiply”.
- Mary & Joseph entering into the marriage contract with an additional binding vow of sexual abstinence seems to go against the traditional Jewish view of spirit of the marriage contract as being ordered to the injunction “Be fruitful and multiply”.
- My view is that Mary & Joseph did not have sexual relations, with or without the binding vow, due to the sacred nature of Mary’s exclusive relationship with God, making her womb the NT Ark of the Covenant.
- Canon 1101.2 and “open-ness to having children” is germane to the spirit of the marriage contract as understood by OT Jewish Tradition and NT Catholic Tradition. I assert that the point is not moot.
P
panevino
Guest
Oh ok, you meant that the virgin birth was under attack around TPJ, I thought u meant PV was attacked prior TPJ.
P
PJM
Guest
Keep in mind what has been rlated seveal times:
The Union was a JEWISH union Before the Church; BEFORE the Canon Laws and Before Pauls comments.
God Bless,
Pat
S
stevekehl
Guest
Matthew is writting about the past so the use of till as a linguistic limitation on past events is moot. Matthew, writting after Jesus ascension could have just written Joseph took Mary as his wife but never knew her or respected her vows of chastity to God or something like that. If I tell you my wife and I did not have children till we got married would you conclude we never had children or we had children after we got married? I understand this is part of Matthew emphasizing that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was born, but the use of till limits that action to the time before Jesus birth. Also, if you were broke I would pay for our dinner.
I understand that, but wouldn’t Mary having a child and everyone assuming she and Joseph broke a vow to God cause them to be ostracized in their community? This, evidently, was not the case since Jesus was circumcised (circumcized?) in the Temple on the eighth day, Joseph and Mary went to the Temple for Passover at least once when Jesus was 12, Jesus publicly proclaimed Himself Messiah at the synagogue in Nazareth so He must have been accepted as clean in order to worship there, and when Jesus ministered in Nazareth the people knew who he was since His family was part of the community.
Mary saying she “know not a man” is a statement every Jewish bride would be expected to say (hopefully in all honesty) before her wedding day. Especially one who has been told she will carry God’s son. How it designates a special vow to God or a life-ling pledge to refrain from sex escapes me. I find it interesting that people think that Mary would be somehow diminished if she had sex with her husband and bore other children. Mary was a uniquely blessed woman and, I’m sure, a leader among the early Christian women, whether she was a virgin or had 10 more kids doesn’t make a difference to me. I simply don’t see why Mary’s perpetual virginity is so important.
W
wynnejj
Guest
Looks like I missed an important point in the TPJ. Both Mary & Joseph were given the “water of ordeal” to drink. They came back unharmed. I take it that the “water of ordeal” was some kind of deadly poison, so Mary & Joseph were expected to pay the ultimate price for adultery, but less of a public display than stoning to death for temple virgin scandals, I suspect. I guess this objection of mine to the TPJ account is not valid.
P
panevino
Guest
because Joseph was already considered her husband matt1:19.
it’s not that complicated, it’s due to who the Father of the Son is.
PV magnifies the divinity of Jesus by her dedication to the Father and His son.
Sarah only had one child with Abraham, Issac. She did not have another child with another man. Gen 17:15—
- Status