Proof of Mary’s Perpetual Virginity in John 19

[Hodos]

that The problems with this theory begin with the fact that no available scholarship concurs with it.

Seeing as the lexicon specifically states the nuance in usage of the Έως όυ construction that I described, yes, there is scholarship that concurs with it. It is interesting that your article is specifically addressing a dissenting point that supposedly has no scholarship supporting it by the way. If there was no debate, there would not be the need for attempting to refute the argument.

 

[Dobereiner]

Here is one use of “heos hou” from the Old Testament.

PSALM 112:7-9 7 He is not afraid of evil tidings; his heart is firm, trusting in the LORD. 8 His heart is steady, he will not be afraid, until (heos hou) he sees his desire on his adversaries. 9 He has distributed freely, he has given to the poor; his righteousness endures for ever;

Will the protagonist no longer have a steady heart or be fearless after overcoming his adversaries?

 

[hope]

What lexicon are you referring to? In my opinion, the debate comes about from ignorance. The word until does not mean a change which is what the ignorant attempt to imply. Not through defining the word but applying their own definition.
The definition that you provided was for a preposition but even so it states that it is to a specific time. The conjunction is not really that much different it means up to such a time. What is continued a failure to provide is that there is a change after the specified time. When you apply this definition it make all usage understandable. Trying to apply another made up definition results in you having a woman having a child after she died. Instead of understanding that it only refers to a certain time period.
BTW Do you still hold to they weren’t married?

 

[hope]

As mentioned, the other two carry the meaning/interpretation of “while”. None of the passages in the NT with ‘heos hou’ mean “until, and continuing on after that”, which is required for the Perpetual Virginity dogma.

Some translations do have while which means a period of time not much different than until. It is easy to see why then that while is used.
I am not understanding what you are saying
As for your sentence, I don’t see an ambiguity when you apply the definition.
“Hey, don’t start swimming until I get back, okay.”
It only means the period of time when they return. It means nothing more just as Matthew wrote about the period before Jesus’ birth and nothing more. You speak of a preposition but in the Scripture we are discussing it is a conjunction.

 

[hope]

On perhaps a more practical level, if the author wished to say that even after the birth of Jesus, the couple had no sexual relations, why didn’t he just say it? Why word it so to cloak such a simple statement in (what at first glance seems like) complete ambiguity? One answer might be that he really didn’t make it ambiguous at all – what he meant he made perfectly clear in his choice of prepositions.

First, as I have already pointed out it was conjunction. Asking why someone didn’t do something is pointless. I mean why did the Matthew Luke have such different accounts of Jesus’ birth? Why didn’t Matthew just say that after Jesus was born Mary and Joseph had other children. It could go on and on and proves nothing. But there is another answer to your question. Matthew’s intent was not to say there were other children but that Jesus was not the child of Joseph but of the Holy Spirit.
Edit. Limitation of the site require me to add this here

Could this unnamed disciple simply be a metaphor for humanity in general (a “disciple whom he loved” enough to give his life for their sins) – Jesus symbolically handing Mary over to ‘us’ (humanity) as ‘our’ (humanity’s) spiritual mother? I think perhaps so.

No it cannot. Although John is not named, the disciple had to be an apostle and if not John who. But really that is beside the point. Jesus could not have had a brother if He handed Mary over to the beloved disciple. But there are other things as well.
Joseph is called Matthew “a righteous man” How would he dare to touch where Jesus his God had been. He would have known that just by touching the ark to keep it from falling killed a man.
It has already been established that Joseph and Mary were married when she said to the angle she “knew not man” not that she didn’t know Joseph but man a general term. A strange comment for a married woman.
In an above post, there is a discussion of how the brother’s named are shown to be children of other parents. There is also the conversation that Jesus has with His “brothers” which indicate that they were older than Jesus.

She was so far removed from her culture and her time."
This is ironic since most do not put her in her culture and time. They loose the fact that it isn’t about Mary, it is about Jesus and who He is.

 

[BlueMaxx]

Not to stray too far off point, but I kind of always had the idea that Joseph may have died young (or old depending on his age at marriage) when Jesus was not very old…have no idea that age.

 

[hope]

We don’t know. He was alive when Jesus stayed behind in the temple. Jesus was twelve. There is no mention of him afterwards which leads to the speculation that he had died.

 

[Dan_Defender]

Not to stray too far off point, but I kind of always had the idea that Joseph may have died young (or old depending on his age at marriage) when Jesus was not very old…have no idea that age.

My idea is the opposite. I think St Joseph may have died shortly before Jesus started his ministry so that Mary would not be a widow for long.

 

[BlueMaxx]

My idea is the opposite. I think St Joseph may have died shortly before Jesus started his ministry so that Mary would not be a widow for long.

We don’t know. He was alive when Jesus stayed behind in the temple. Jesus was twelve. There is no mention of him afterwards which leads to the speculation that he had died.

I kind of think that way too…both scenarios makes sense to me…

 

[Medawlinno]

Part 1 -
The author of Mark (generally agreed to be the first written of the three synoptic gospels) makes use of the Greek ‘mythic hero archetype template’ in his telling of the Jesus story. This is a ‘template’ a Greek audience would have been very familiar with (it’s essentially the same template as Homer’s Iliad).

In this template, once the ‘father’ figure’s role in the story has been competed, typically coinciding to when the ‘hero’ (in this case, Jesus) comes of age, he is simply dropped from the narrative never to be seen or heard from again. This is a common literary device, done so that the main focus can now be placed on the ‘hero’ of the story. It does not mean the ‘father’ figure is dead, just that his ‘job’/’role’ in the story is done so he’s simply written out of the remaining narrative.

This concept of writing the parental figures out of a narrative so focus can be placed on the ‘hero/heroine’ of the story (the son/daughter) has European parallels as well; particularly in ‘hero/heroine’ folk tales. It’s more or less formulaic: in order for the hero to come into his own, the leading male figure (typically the father) usually meets some untimely demise (at least in the European formula). Same for the heroine’s mother.

We have, of course, a missing period of time of about 20 years in the Jesus story (from roughly the ages of 13-30-ish). He’s about 13 when his story suddenly stops. In many models, it is during this time where the hero/heroine faces many challenges and adventures that shape his/her character as an adult. In the Jesus story, this period is just a void and we are left to our own devices as to what took place. When we see Jesus next, he is an adult embarking upon his mission. Jesus seems to now take on the role of ‘head of household’ with respect to Mary. The ‘hero’ of the epic has emerged as the main focal point. It’s interesting to note (and perhaps further evidences the author’s use of this template) that Mary and Jesus never once refer to Joseph after Jesus attains adulthood. He just completely drops off the face of the earth.

The point is, is that even though Joseph is never referred to again (except in a few indirect references, e.g. where Jesus is called the “son of the carpenter”, the “son of Joseph”), it does not equate to his being deceased.

 

[Medawlinno]

Part 2 -
It is also noteworthy that Jesus does not hand Mary’s care off to a disciple in any of the synoptic gospels. This seems to further suggest that Joseph, though completely absent and written out of the narrative, is still living at the time of crucifixion. No need for her care to be entrusted to someone else.

Given that he would have been a few years older than Mary, and assuming he was about 20 when married to her, he would have been in his early 50’s (if not late 40’s) at the time of the crucifixion. Perhaps ‘older‘ for the time, but hardly on his deathbed (and yes, occupational accidents were more common back then, but nothing of the sort is reported in the narrative).

I don’t think Joseph was deceased; I think he was simply written out of the narrative. That he is not reported to have met some untimely demise or ever referenced as being deceased seems to suggest was still alive and well.

 

[Medawlinno]

translations

Operative word.

 

[hope]

hope:

translations

Operative word.

Yes So what is your point?

 

[hope]

The point is, is that even though Joseph is never referred to again (except in a few indirect references, e.g. where Jesus is called the “son of the carpenter”, the “son of Joseph”), it does not equate to his being deceased.

I don’t buy that Mark was written first. Was it written for a Greek audience? The audience was non-Jewish Christians more likely living in Rome who were experiencing persecution for their faith. The fact that Jesus gave the care of His mother over to an apostle, more than likely it was John is proof that her husband was dead. Because it is not mentioned in any other Gospel is not a reasonable reason to believe he was alive. What did someone write recently absent of proof is not proof.

 

[Cathoholic]

RidgeSprinter . . . .

But you have to look at the first part of Matt 13:55:

Mat 13:55 Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

Why do you think Jesus is referred to as “the Carpenters son” instead of “one of the carpenters sons”?

(The verse you chose to post here lends support to the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary).

 

[hope]

The author of Mark (generally agreed to be the first written of the three synoptic gospels) makes use of the Greek ‘mythic hero archetype template’ in his telling of the Jesus story. This is a ‘template’ a Greek audience would have been very familiar with (it’s essentially the same template as Homer’s Iliad).

In this template, once the ‘father’ figure’s role in the story has been competed, typically coinciding to when the ‘hero’ (in this case, Jesus) comes of age, he is simply dropped from the narrative never to be seen or heard from again. This is a common literary device, done so that the main focus can now be placed on the ‘hero’ of the story. It does not mean the ‘father’ figure is dead, just that his ‘job’/’role’ in the story is done so he’s simply written out of the remaining narrative.

There are those who attempt to say that Jesus is not a real person. They attempt to say that Jesus is merely the retelling of some Greek Myth. I am not saying that is what you are doing but it does remind me of those who do. I reject the notion that Mark was using a Greek Template. Your template could be applied to any story. You have manipulated the story that is what is done to make it look like a Greek Archetype template. One of the manipulations is changing father to father figure. The template you present I would argue does not fit even the Iliad.

 

[Medawlinno]

Your next door neighbor has four kids, If you should happen to see one somewhere, do you say, “Hey that’s Bill’s kid, isn’t it?”, or do you say “Hey, that’s one of Bill’s kids, isn’t it?”.

You could certainly say either or, but I’d argue that the former would be much more commonly heard than the latter.

 

[Medawlinno]

I don’t buy that Mark was written first. Was it written for a Greek audience? The audience was non-Jewish Christians more likely living in Rome who were experiencing persecution for their faith.

The general consensus of most Biblical scholars is that Mark was written first. There are, of course, other theories, but given the evidence presented by scholars, the so-called “Markian Theory” seems to be the most likely. The audience, though living in Rome was Greek speaking. Through the process of Hellenization, most people in Rome would have spoken Greek at that time – it was more “fashionable” among the middle and upper class (along with ‘everything Greek’ - sort of like French and ‘things French’ in England after 1066); Latin was regarded the language of the peasants.

 

[Medawlinno]

There are those who attempt to say that Jesus is not a real person. They attempt to say that Jesus is merely the retelling of some Greek Myth. I am not saying that is what you are doing but it does remind me of those who do. I reject the notion that Mark was using a Greek Template. Your template could be applied to any story. You have manipulated the story that is what is done to make it look like a Greek Archetype template. One of the manipulations is changing father to father figure. The template you present I would argue does not fit even the Iliad.

That’s not at all what I’m suggesting – the author of Mark was using an ancient and well-known literary style/form ( a template) to tell his story. He borrowed from an established literary source. It’s a style that people would have known and been very familiar with. Had he written it (still in Greek) in a style that was more Jewish, I tend to suspect that it may not have been as well understood/received.

I have not manipulated anything – and, yes, the Archetype template was an extremely popular one and I’m sure many stories were told and written using it. Storytelling, particularly of heroes and the like, was very formulaic.

 

[hope]

it was more “fashionable” among the middle and upper class (along with ‘everything Greek’ - sort of like French and ‘things French’ in England after 1066); Latin was regarded the language of the peasants.

Catholic Encyclopedia

On the whole, the vocabulary of the Second Gospel points to the writer as a foreigner who was well acquainted with colloquial Greek, but a comparative stranger to the literary use of the language.

yes, the Archetype template was an extremely popular one and I’m sure many stories were told and written using it.

In this template, once the ‘father’ figure’s role in the story has been competed, typically coinciding to when the ‘hero’ (in this case, Jesus) comes of age, he is simply dropped from the narrative never to be seen or heard from again.

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.