Proof of Mary’s Perpetual Virginity in John 19

[Good_Fella]

The Semitic and Greek words for “until” or “till” ( 'ad/ heos ) refer to the period that precedes an event. These prepositions do not function to imply what might come after it. What matters is only what happens before the event in question occurs. The preposition ‘aḏ (עַד) literally means “up to the time of”. In the original Greek translation of the Gospel of Matthew, the word for “until” is heos or ἕως. Not unlike the Hebrew preposition, the word references the period leading up to an event in question. It literally means “up to the time of” or “hitherto” without necessarily implying anything unrelated that might come after. Matthew is strictly concerned with how Mary and Joseph related to each other prior to the conception and birth of Jesus. This is evident by the fact that the author quotes Isaiah 7:14 in Vv. 22-23. His main point is that Jesus is indeed the long-awaited Messiah of the Hebrew people, but he isn’t of paternal human lineage as the Jews expect. Simply put, the Greek word for “until” does not mean “until after” but rather “up until.” Matthew is underscoring the truth of the incarnation.

We have the statement “Behold your mother” occurring in Matthew 12:47 and Mark 3:32. The theological theme in these two verses resembles that which we have in John 19:25-27. Both deal with what it means to be a “brethren of Jesus. ”The crux of these passages is that the ties of obedience to the will of God take precedence over those of blood kinship. Although Jesus does not deny or intend to belittle his kinship with his mother, he nonetheless subordinates it to a higher bond of kinship that transcends all biological ties. Jesus regards Mary as his genuine mother more for her faith in God than for their physiological ties, since it is a greater blessing to her (Lk 11:27-28). Our Lord has the Annunciation and Crucifixion in mind when he answers the crowd after his attention is drawn to the presence of his mother and kin outside. Our Lord’s reply, therefore, indicates that he regards his mother to be more of a mother to him by being a woman of faith, without which she could never have become his natural mother in the hypostatic order of his incarnation, nor thereby the spiritual mother of all his disciples in the new family of God that transcends Israel. The Disciple (John) is what exegetes call " a corporate personality." Mary’s other children are her spiritual offspring. Jesus calls his mother Mary “Woman” in allusion to Eve before her fall from grace.

 

[Hodos]

The Semitic and Greek words for “until” or “till” ( 'ad/ heos ) refer to the period that precedes an event.

No they don’t. As your colleague pointed out, the word until is used as a conjunction, which is a connector between two clauses, one providing a dependent clause, and the other providing the condition which must be met. And as pointed out before the conjunction is not just Έως, the conjunctive phrase is Έως όυ which provides a more concrete definition which does indicate by the fact that the phrase following the until statement is in the indicative mood rather than the subjunctive mood. In this case, both in English and in Greek according to Thayer’s lexicon, this indicates the second of the two definitions for “until” that I provided. So the sentence reads: he “knew her not” and then the lexicon would translate the Έως όυ clause as until or until the time when, followed by the indicative phrase she had given birth to a son, a condition that was certain to have been met. The narrator is not speculating that Jesus was born and that Joseph names him as the Archangel Gabriel told him to do, he is stating a fact. There is no reason to believe that the condition preceding the conjunction then continued into the future indefinitely when the author is telling you that the condition was definitely met.

We have the statement “Behold your mother” occurring in Matthew 12:47 and Mark 3:32.

This is odd to me that of the two statements, your defense of the doctrine of perpetual virginity using this statement is based far more on speculation than the one in Matthew 1:25, which reads pretty clearly, and yet this is the hill you want to die upon. You are assuming here that Jesus is not divine and doesn’t know the future, such as that James, his eldest brother would die an early, violent death. You are also ignoring the fact that Eusebius states that Jude was the brother of Jesus according to the flesh.

 

[hope]

Here we go again. The definition which you provided does not say that the condition changes. The definition provided for the conjunction means up to the time and nothing more. You have provided no definition to the contrary.

This is odd to me that of the two statements, your defense of the doctrine of perpetual virginity using this statement is based far more on speculation than the one in Matthew 1:25, which reads pretty clearly, and yet this is the hill you want to die upon

What is odd is your take on this and that you believe anything is clear. These versus are often used, as you have yourself, as some kind of proof that Mary had other children. James his eldest brother? Now clearly you do not mean to say he was older than Jesus but that is the way I read it. It has also been established that James mother was not Mary. Further it is not clear that Eusebius was not meaning a kinsman.

 

[hope]

You are also ignoring the fact that Eusebius states that Jude was the brother of Jesus according to the flesh.

To bad you didn’t read the link that was provided by fide on the Brother of Jesus. Here in part is what the article quotes Eusebius as also saying.

So let’s see what Eusebius has to say about the identity of James, Joseph, Mary and Clopas. There are three passages in Eusebius that are worth paying attention to if we want to answer the question, who are the brothers of Jesus? Are they the children of Mary? The first comes from Eusebius’s Church History, book 4: paragraph 22, and it says this:

After James the just had suffered martyrdom, for the same reason as the Lord, Simeon, his cousin [meaning the Lords cousin], the son of Clopas, was appointed Bishop. Whom they all propose because he was another cousin of the Lord.

Alright, pause there. So notice what Eusebius just said. He is showing here that James, the brother of Jesus, that’s what Paul calls him, who is also known as James the Just, the first bishop of Jerusalem, the one who’s mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles and in the letters of Paul, after James the brother Jesus was martyred, the next person to be appointed Bishop was Simeon, or Simon, who was another one of the so-called brothers of Jesus. But as Eusebius makes clear, he wasn’t a child of Mary, he was in fact the cousin of Jesus, because he was the son of Clopas.

Which supports that Eusebius is not saying That James is the offspring of Mary but a cousin to Jesus.

 

[Cathoholic]

Medawlinno . .

You could certainly say either . . .

But he doesn’t say either.

He says the “son” singular.

Don’t get me wrong. I am not saying this proves anything.

All I am saying is this is one piece of the puzzle.

Naturally as it supports the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary. As all the verses do concerning Mary and Her Son Jesus in this realm (or they are neutral).

 

[Cathoholic]

Medawlinno using the what I call the “heos house argument” to DENY the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary . . .

Much of the argument of Mary’s perpetual virginity, and hence the siblings of Jesus, hinges on the use of the Greek prepositions ‘heos’ and heos hou’. Most Catholic apologists seem to like to argue that there is no difference in meaning between the two and that they are used interchangeably.

I do not believe this is the case though.

@Medawlinno. If I showed you that the heos you argument is irrelevant, would you consider affirming the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary?
(Because I do not want to do all the “homework”, if it doesn’t really matter to you anyway.)

 

[Good_Fella]

The action of the main clause doesn’t necessarily cease with heos ou; heos hou can be used interchangeably with heos and mean the same thing “up to the time of.” Catholic apologists provide another example in the NT: 'But when Paul had appealed to be kept in custody for the decision of the emperor, I commanded him to be held until ( heos hou ) I could send him to Caesar" (Acts 25:21). We know for a fact that the apostle remained in custody after he was sent to Caesar; he was held while en-route to Rome (Acts 27:1) and for a short time after he arrived there (Acts 29:16). Thus, the action of the main clause (the command to be held in custody) did not necessarily cease upon the pivotal event (being sent to Caesar) in the linear course of time. Paul was no more sent to Caesar free of his chains than Mary was no longer a virgin sometime after the birth of Christ.

As for Eusebius’ statement that Jude was the brother of Jesus “in the flesh,” he means Jude (the apostle and author of the NT book) was a ‘cousin’ of Jesus. The word ‘flesh’ doesn’t necessarily signify a male sibling. The words “brothers” and “sisters” mentioned in Mark 6:3, for instance, refer to extended kin. We read: But Jesus said unto them, ‘A prophet is not without honor, but in his own country, and among his own kin (συγγενής, ές / suggenes ), and in his own house’” (Mk 6:4). The plural Greek word used refers to kinsfolk, relatives, or fellow countrymen. This same word is used by Luke in his account of the Annunciation which in the singular form specifically means “cousin” in this instance: “And, behold, thy cousin (συγγενίς / syngenis ) Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren” (Luke 1:36). Thus, Jesus apparently replies with his cousins (relatives or kin) in mind in response to what was said by those who were offended at him.

You’re begging the question. I’m not assuming anything. Rather you’re presuming that James is Jesus’ sibling while, in fact, the two were cousins. James and Joses are identified as being the sons of another Mary, the wife of Alphaeus/Clopas and sister-in-law of our Lord’s mother (Mk 15:40; Mt 27:56; Jn 19:25). This makes them cousins of Jesus.

 

[Good_Fella]

In Strong’s Concordance the morphology of the word “until” is a preposition. Heos is a relative adverb. Hou is a relative pronoun. When used together, ‘heos’ changes to a preposition that governs the relative pronoun. This basically means that hou really has no effect on the meaning of the couplet, the operative word in the couplet being heos. The English equivalent of heos hou can be translated as “until which” or “until which time” or “until such time as.” Neither does the negative form affect heos. So, Matthew is saying, for instance, that Joseph had no sexual relations with Mary until which or that time she gave birth to Jesus without having to necessarily imply what might happen after his birth which, by the way, has no soteriological significance at all. What concerns Matthew’s Hebrew audience is the question of whether Jesus was, in fact, the natural son of Joseph. The incarnation must have been very tough to reconcile with for the Jewish converts. Anyway, The only other contingency here is the use of ‘heos an’. This is a special case in Greek. When the clause introduced by heos depends on a verb of future time, and refers to a future contingency, it takes the Subjunctive mood with the use of ‘an’, both in classical and New Testament Greek (Mt 5:18). See Burton’s Grammar.

The angel relieved Joseph of his fear when he instructed him to take Mary into his home as his lawful wife, but not to normally co-habit with her: “Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife” (Mt 1:20). In the Greek translation of the original Hebrew, the prepositional phrase “to take home as your wife” reads paralambano gunaika . This shows that there was no need for the angel to tell Joseph that he shouldn’t be afraid to “come together” with his wife ( bo-e-lei-ha imma ) or “lay with” her ( vai-yish-kav imma ) (Gen 30:3, 16-17), since the couple had apparently agreed on having a chaste marriage (cf. Lk 1:34).

Various translations of Luke 1:27 have Mary “betrothed” or “espoused” to Joseph at the time of the Annunciation. Either term means that the couple was legally married, although their marriage hadn’t been consummated yet. Mosaic law provided a two-part marriage ceremony. It began with the betrothal or espousal ( Kiddushin ). Now the second part of their marriage would have followed a year after the first wedding ceremony. By this time, Joseph was expected to be able to provide for Mary. And if both were happy with each other and remained faithful to each other, the second and final wedding ceremony ( Nisuin ) would solemnly take place. The signing of the contract ( ketubah) was the focal point of the second wedding ceremony. Here Joseph would have formally accepted the responsibilities of providing food and shelter, clothing for his wife, and attending to her emotional needs. After the ketubah was signed by Joseph and the two witnesses and presented to Mary, the marriage was solemnized. Assured of her marital rights, Mary could now move into her husband’s home.

 

[Medawlinno]

But he doesn’t say either .

He says the “son” singular .

What he’s saying is essentially the equivalent in my example of “Hey, isn’t that Bill’s kid”.

Yes, you’re right - it’s one piece of the puzzle. “Is this not the carpenter’s son” does not imply no additional children; you’re just identifying the one in question (in this case, Jesus).

 

[Medawlinno]

If so, and I definitely disagree with this assertion, how did Mark, who never mentions Joseph, drop Joseph. Your theory is that Mark used a Greek story telling devise that after the coming of age of the hero drops that father from the story but this didn’t happen in Mark since he is the only one of the synoptic writers not to mention the birth of Jesus. He doesn’t just drop him. He is never present.

Yes, Mark never mentions Joseph – he doesn’t really deal with Jesus’s human side, so to speak. You’re quite right, there is no Joseph to drop from the narrative for Mark; he was never there to begin with.

It’s Matthew and Luke who drop him from the narrative at about the time Jesus attains adulthood (when his parents ‘loose’ him in Jerusalem – he’s roughly about the age of his bar-mitzvah. Traditionally done at 13, but there is no specific age given in either the Bible or (I believe) the Mishnah).

That said, I do hold that Mark (as well as other gospel writers), in spite of using a common Greek in writing and prose, without a doubt imitated the epics and based his writing on established literary sources, specifically Homer.

Homer’s epics loomed incredibly large on the ancient literary scene. That imitation of Homer was a basic element in Greco-Roman literary composition—is undeniable. Early Christian authors participated in Homeric imitation.

If Mark’s audience was just the “average Joe”, that explains its colloquial diction and poor Greek. He wrote in the style that the average person on the street would speak and be able to easily relate to (rather than a more formal literary style).

Further, that it is written in a very colloquial style suggests it was written to be delivered orally to an audience (though most people of the time when reading in private also read aloud). The fact that his style is very colloquial may also suggest that he wanted to capture a wider, more general, audience.

In other words, his “poor” writing style does not necessarily indicate he was not that literate in Greek. Given his intended audience, it may have been very deliberate.

Though I’m not sure that I agree with everything suggested as Homeric borrowings, beginning with the Iliad, Acts and Mark seem to have imitated the earliest Greek epic. The following are a few examples cited: Jesus dies like Hector (from the divine point of view), walks on water like Hermes, and is courageous like Achilles. He heals two women who are too similar to Sarpedon and Glaucus to be coincidence. The casting of lots for Judas’ successor in Acts is like the casting of lots for someone to fight Hector, the list goes on.

As I said, I’m not sure I’d agree with all the comparisons some scholars offer, but the gospel authors were definitely drawing on the established concept of the Greek epic when they wrote.

 

[Medawlinno]

If I showed you that the heos you argument is irrelevant, would you consider affirming the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary?
(Because I do not want to do all the “homework”, if it doesn’t really matter to you anyway.)

I’m familiar with all the arguments about the whole “heos” vs.“heos hou” issue with respect to trying to demonstrate that both had the exact same meaning and that “hou” sort of cancels itself out when used with “heos”, depending on how it’s used.

That both mean essentially the same thing is not the issue. It’s the nuance and semantics involved in each. Both essentially mean “until”, but each carries a different semantic nuance; else wise, there would be absolutely no need for two different renderings of the same word.

I’m also aware of the tons of arguments presented both for and against Mary’s perpetual virginity.

Unless some hitherto unknown manuscript come to light that answers the question once and for all, I don’t think the question will ever be satisfactorily answered or proven by either ‘side’ - ultimately, it comes down to personal belief.

 

[Hodos]

Here we go again. The definition which you provided does not say that the condition changes. The definition provided for the conjunction means up to the time and nothing more. You have provided no definition to the contrary.

What do you think the term Terminus Ad Quem means? This is specifically mentioned in the definition provided in the lexicon.

James his eldest brother? Now clearly you do not mean to say he was older than Jesus but that is the way I read it.

Right, because your are purposefully distorting the text of what I said, curiously like your eisegesis of Matthew 1:25. Eldest brother means, he is the oldest of Jesus brothers. It does not mean he is older than Jesus himself. This is clear from the sentence absent mental gymnastics because you are trying to defend a conclusion brought in for another reason than what the text actually says.

Further it is not clear that Eusebius was not meaning a kinsman.

Sure it is. He was referring to the Jude from scripture, which is described as Jesus brother in the same context nd sentence as Mary was described as Jesus’ mother. It is only unclear when you divorce the text from the natural reading because you are trying to eisegete a tradition that comes nowhere from the text itself.

 

[Hodos]

After James the just had suffered martyrdom, for the same reason as the Lord, Simeon, his cousin [meaning the Lords cousin], the son of Clopas, was appointed Bishop. Whom they all propose because he was another cousin of the Lord.

You are actually just argued against your entire case. Eusebius uses the word for cousin, not the word for brother, showing that the Greek language provides ample distinction between the word brother and other words that could be used for cousin or kinsman, and that there is no reason why we should accept that somehow the author of Matthew (both the human and the Holy Spirit) didn’t know the difference between kinsman and brother, or cousin and brother. Also, it apparently hadn’t occurred to you that the name Simeon or Simon might be common, just as the name Jacob (James) was. And yet we see multiple people just in Matthew named Jacob (James) and Simeon (Simon) who are not identical individuals. It appears to me you are making another unproven assumption that the Simeon mentioned by Eusebius is the same Simeon as mentioned in Matthew 10. The passage in Eusebius doesn’t support such an assumption. So you will make an argument from silence, but ignore a plain statement by Matthew in an effort to prooftext a tradition that has no discernible link to any apostolic author.

 

[Medawlinno]

Which supports that Eusebius is not saying That James is the offspring of Mary but a cousin to Jesus.

Eusebius is saying that Simon is a cousin to both James and Jesus as his (Simon’s) father, Clopas, is Joseph’s brother.

Symeon son of the Clopas, mentioned in the gospel narrative, was worthy to occupy the throne (i.e., the position of Bishop) of the Jerusalem see. He was, so it is said, a cousin of the savior, for Hegesippus relates that Clopas was the brother of Joseph" (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History. 3.11.1)

Symeon was second after the brother of our Savior to have charge of the church in Jerusalem.” (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History. 4.22.0)

Symeon/Simon was recognized as an able and very capable leader. According to Hegesippus, he was recognized as the first cousin of Jesus and Jacob (James), as his father Cleopas was the brother of Joseph, the father of both of these brothers.

Book 4, Chapter 22:4

1. The same author also describes the beginnings of the heresies which arose in his time, in the following words: And after James the Just had suffered martyrdom, as the Lord had also on the same account, Symeon, the son of the Lord’s uncle, Clopas, was appointed the next bishop. All proposed him as second bishop because he was a cousin of the Lord.

There’s no “another” here (i.e. “another cousin”). James and Jesus were brothers; Symeon was their cousin is what Eusebius is saying.

 

[Hodos]

The action of the main clause doesn’t necessarily cease with heos ou ; heos hou can be used interchangeably with heos and mean the same thing “up to the time of.”

The word Έως means until or as far as. The word όυ means of whom, of which, or of when. When paired with together, Έως όυ until the time when or until when, until which time, etc. This conjunctive phrase can be followed by either indicative mood statement, which speaks to something that has or is certain to happen, or a subjunctive mood statement, which speaks to something that is hoped for, desired, or may happen but is not certain. In the case of Matthew 1:25, we see the Έως όυ construction followed by an indicative statement that we know to be true.

The theological theme in these two verses resembles that which we have in John 19:25-27. Both deal with what it means to be a “brethren of Jesus.

I see no actual evidence in John 19:25-27 that this is making the same statement as the one in Matthew 1:25, it is going to take a lot more exegesis of this passage to establish this assertion. In Matthew, Jesus follow-up statement makes clear that this was his intention through explicit explanation. There is no such explanation either by Jesus or the author to make the claim you are making in John 19. This is a case of trying to draw an allegory where the apostolic authors did not make one. What we do see is that John literally took Mary into his own home, a specific application made by John, limited to his time and place. No further theological explanation that this means something else, which is conspicuous because of the four gospels John is the most likely to do so if it holds theological weight.

 

[Good_Fella]

You aren’t making any sense. In the first clause, we have ‘He “knew her not” [ἐγίνωσκεν (eginōsken) Imperfect Indicative Active] and in the second clause, “she gave birth to” [ἔτεκεν (eteken) Aorist Indicative Active] a son, and called his name Jesus.’ There’s nothing else written that comes after this. The Greek indicative mood presents the action or the event as something real or certain; in other words, as an objective fact. We both know for a fact that Mary and Joesph had no relations before the birth of Jesus and that she gave birth to Jesus. Nothing further is written or added in this statement other than the infant was named Jesus. After this event, you can only speculate and believe what you want to believe. There is no logical connection between the couple not having marital relations and the birth, and naming of Jesus that points to the future. The only thing logical would be that the couple had no marital relations before Jesus was born, if in fact the incarnation were true.

In the given context, the preposition or conjunctional adverb is really synonymous with “before.” If on the contrary it were meant in its full contemporary Western English sense (until after), if it really meant that Joseph and Mary’s chaste relationship changed after the birth, then the stylistics present another big problem: We would have to believe that Matthew was actually inviting contemplation of the couple’s later sexual activity. This is doubtful, if not absurd, to say the least. It’s all about context and, of course, the analogy of Scripture (cf. Luke 1:34).

 

[Good_Fella]

The best translation we have for John 19:27 is the one made by St. Jerome, the greatest biblical scholar of his time, who not only spoke Greek and Hebrew fluently but had ancient manuscripts to work: “The disciple took her to his own.” In Greek: ἔλαβεν ὁ μαθητὴς αὐτὴν εἰς τὰ ἴδια. the Greek word for “took” is lambanō (λαμβάνω). This term connotes “take in the hand,” “take hold of, grasp.” It also encompasses the meaning to take away, take up, receive, or remove, without the use of force. Moreover, the term has mental or spiritual aspects when it is translated “make one’s own,” “apprehend,” or “comprehend” as Jerome has translated it in the Latin Vulgate. Roman Catholic Biblical scholar John McHugh builds upon the spiritual connotation of the word. He argues that the Disciple accepts Mary as his very own mother, and as part of the “spiritual legacy bequeathed to him by his Lord.” The use of the verb lambanō indicates something important that moves beyond the death scene being played out on Golgotha and is connected to it. This spiritual or cognitive connotation implies that there is a tacit understanding that occurs between Jesus, Mary, and the Disciple which must do with something more significant than the fact Jesus is about to die as anyone else might by being crucified and consequently must leave his widowed mother behind who is in dire need of being looked after. If Jesus had brothers and sisters, they would have been bound to look after her according to Mosaic law (4th Commandment).

Anyway, The Mother and the beloved Disciple thus understand that this event marks a beginning – the start of something new that shall continue in this life and eternally in the Kingdom of Heaven. The original Greek text literally reads “to the own” (εἰς τὰ ἴδια). The Disciple (no name given) took Mary into his heart as a loving son of hers in their newly established spiritual filial bond. He received her in the deepest core of his being as her spiritual offspring. Certainly, Mary did not have to become an adopted mother for John to look after her as a caregiver. Jesus wasn’t speaking figuratively of her. She became the Disciple’s very own mother in the family of God in a spiritual and mystical sense.

The imperative “Behold” (Heb. hinneh ) is sometimes used as a “predicator of existence”, something that looks to a new state of being (the redefinition of Mary’s motherhood). The hinneh clauses emphasize the immediacy of the situation (the crucifixion), and they may be used to point things out for the sake of clarification. For instance, “Behold (here is) Bilhah, my servant. Sleep with her so that she can bear children for me and that I too can have a family by her” (Gen 30:3). Significantly, most hinneh clauses occur in direct speech. They introduce a fact or something actual on which a subsequent statement or command is based and must be closely observed. What Jesus said to the Disciple was “Here is your mother,” meaning she was as much of a mother to him as Bilhah was a servant of Rachel – and Mary the handmaid of the Lord: “Behold, I am (here is) the handmaid of the Lord” (Lk 1:38).

 

[Hodos]

You aren’t making any sense. In the first clause, we have ‘He “knew her not” [ἐγίνωσκεν (eginōsken) Imperfect Indicative Active] and in the second clause, “she gave birth to” [ἔτεκεν (eteken) Aorist Indicative Active] a son, and called his name Jesus.’ There’s nothing else written that comes after this.

That is exactly what I said earlier. Both indicative statements.

There is no logical connection between the couple not having marital relations and the birth, and naming of Jesus that points to the future. The only thing logical would be that the couple had no marital relations before Jesus was born, if in fact the incarnation were true.

Yes there is, he conditions the first phrase (he did not know her, a euphemism for having sex) upon the completion of the second phrase (until she gave birth to a son). That is the logical and natural reading of the text. You are the one making the statement that the first clause has no relation to the second clause, when clearly a conjunctive phrase is used to connect the two.

We would have to believe that Matthew was actually inviting contemplation of the couple’s later sexual activity. This is doubtful, if not absurd, to say the least. It’s all about context and, of course, the analogy of Scripture (cf. Luke 1:34).

It is absurd that a husband consummate his marriage with his wife? So you are saying that nowhere else in the Bible is this discussed? Like with Abraham and Sarah? Samson’s parents, Samuel’s parents, etc.? Its not that absurd. Also, you are ignoring the fact that Matthew later mentions Jesus brothers and sisters. So yeah, I agree, it is all about context, and you are ignoring the context.

In the given context, the preposition or conjunctional adverb is really synonymous with “before.”

And yet, the author didn’t use before, which was known to him, he used the conjunctive phrase until when.

 

[Hodos]

This term connotes “take in the hand,” “take hold of, grasp.” It also encompasses the meaning to take away, take up, receive, or remove, without the use of force.

I am very aware of the range of meaning for this verb. This in no way proves your allegory though. There is a huge leap between John taking Mary into his home, and allegorizing it as Jesus gave his mother to the Church, or to say that the persons who both John and Matthew describes as Jesus’ brothers were not his brothers.

Moreover, the term has mental or spiritual aspects when it is translated “make one’s own,” “apprehend,” or “comprehend” as Jerome has translated it in the Latin Vulgate.

So now you are rejecting the obvious meaning provided in the Greek for a foreign language translation. Sound exegetical principles here.

Anyway, The Mother and the beloved Disciple thus understand that this event marks a beginning – the start of something new that shall continue in this life and eternally in the Kingdom of Heaven.

Okay, show me where this is explicitly stated. Again, this is eisegesis of the text, not exegesis.

The imperative “Behold” (Heb. hinneh ) is sometimes used as a “predicator of existence”, something that looks to a new state of being (the redefinition of Mary’s motherhood).

Or conversely, it means, Look!

The imperative “Behold” (Heb. hinneh ) is sometimes used as a “predicator of existence”, something that looks to a new state of being (the redefinition of Mary’s motherhood). The hinneh clauses emphasize the immediacy of the situation (the crucifixion), and they may be used to point things out for the sake of clarification. For instance, “Behold (here is) Bilhah, my servant. Sleep with her so that she can bear children for me and that I too can have a family by her” (Gen 30:3). Significantly, most hinneh clauses occur in direct speech.

The gospel of John was written in Greek. There is no evidence it was written in Hebrew or more precisely Aramaic. You are now assuming a text which does not exist to make a point the text doesn’t attempt to make, to defend a traditional interpretation from which there is no apostolic link. What does the text actually say?

 

[Cathoholic]

Medawlinno . . .

I’m familiar with all the arguments about the whole “heos” vs.“heos hou” issue with respect to trying to demonstrate that both had the exact same meaning and that “hou” sort of cancels itself out when used with “heos”, depending on how it’s used.

If you are familiar with it, I am surprised you would use such a weak argument to DENY the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Then attempt to support your heos hou assertion other than with circular reasoning and ipse dixit.

.

Medawlinno on heos vrs heos hou . . .

That both mean essentially the same thing is not the issue. It’s the nuance and semantics involved in each. Both essentially mean “until”, but each carries a different semantic nuance . . .

To the readers here. This is invented.

This argument was made up by an anti-Catholic named Svendsen if I recall correctly.

Then these guys also make-up the semantic “conclusions” too.

Don’t fall for this.

else wise, there would be absolutely no need for two different renderings of the same word.

That assumes the phony presuppsition of Svendsen’s that these are different renderings.

It is a logical fallacy.

It is circular reasoning.

Hypothetical discussion . . .

Two ways of saying the same thing = two different renderings so they must not mean the same thing.

Why not?

Because there are two different renderings.

Why do you think that?

Because they use two different meanings?

How do you know that?

Because there are two different renderings.

etc. etc.

Medawlinno . . .

I’m also aware of the tons of arguments presented both for and against Mary’s perpetual virginity.

Right now I am looking for only one answer.
The made-up heos hou spoof.

Unless some hitherto unknown manuscript come to light that answers the question once and for all, I don’t think the question will ever be satisfactorily answered

As Mark Shea would say:

What do you want? A certificate of Perpetual Virginty?"

The reason you think this is a mere pious devotion is because you’ve been told that (by guys like Svendsen)

All Marian doctrines have Christoloic implications.

The reason guys like Svedsen DENY this truth is their low-ball view of Jesus in my opinion. There are other reasons too.

.

Medawlinno . . .

ultimately, it comes down to personal belief.

No it doesnt.

It all comes down to Divine revelation (which guys like Svendsen deny).