Question on Matt 1:25 RSV?

[LegoGE1947]

Matt 1:25 that Joseph took Mary as wife but “knew her not until she had borne a son…” The RSV footnote to this reads " This means only that Joseph had nothing to do with the conception of Jesus. It implies nothing as to what happened afterward" How can we as Catholics say Mary was a “perpetual virgin” in light of this? ( I believe it because the Church says so, but how to explain this to someone who does not believe it?)

 

[GEddie]

Matt 1:25 that Joseph took Mary as wife but “knew her not until she had borne a son…” The RSV footnote to this reads " This means only that Joseph had nothing to do with the conception of Jesus. It implies nothing as to what happened afterward" How can we as Catholics say Mary was a “perpetual virgin” in light of this? ( I believe it because the Church says so, but how to explain this to someone who does not believe it?)

The RSV is a Protestant version, so the footnotes will reflect that perspective.

“Until” does not imply that anything does **or does not **happen afterward, particularly in Scripture.

Saul’s daughter Michal was childless until her death; does this mean she had children after she died?

In Rev, our LORD said “I am with you until the end of the age.” Does that mean He will leave us at the end of the age?

ICXC NIKA

 

[LegoGE1947]

The RSV is a Protestant version, so the footnotes will reflect that perspective.

“Until” does not imply that anything does **or does not **happen afterward, particularly in Scripture.

Saul’s daughter Michal was childless until her death; does this mean she had children after she died?

In Rev, our LORD said “I am with you until the end of the age.” Does that mean He will leave us at the end of the age?

ICXC NIKA

This footnote is in the RSV-Catholic edition which is why I wondered. Answer to your rhetorical questions: no, and no. Thanks for the response

 

[Neofight]

After smoking for 35 years, my father quit smoking.

He didn’t have another cigarette until the day he died.

Well, obviously he did not light up immediately after he was pronounced dead!

 

[Kmon23]

I would recommend you read Catholic Answer’s answers regarding this.
Specifically “Mary: Ever Virgin,” “Brethren of the Lord” and “The Case for Mary’s Perpetual Virginity”
Any of those articles are sufficient in answering your question.

Although in short, the word “until/till” is used as a colloquialism (as an earlier answer explains with examples), and does not have any bearing that there were marital relations after Jesus’ birth. Further evidence to suggest that she was perpetually a virgin is the fact that Mary was already espoused to Joseph (1st part of the marriage) if you look in Luke. There is more context in the article.
Also, during the crucifixion Mary was entrusted to the care of John even though by Jewish customs, the next eldest son/child would be entrusted to Mary. Since John is clearly not the eldest brother, it would heavily imply Jesus was Mary’s only Son. Also, further details on the crucifixion shed light on the likelihood that any “brethren” of Jesus are actually his cousins, specifically in regards to Clopas.

 

[GEddie]

After smoking for 35 years, my father quit smoking.

He didn’t have another cigarette until the day he died.

Well, obviously he did not light up immediately after he was pronounced dead!

I sure hope the man found the non-smoking side of the afterlife!!!

 

[chefmomster2]

I sure hope the man found the non-smoking side of the afterlife!!!

 

[LegoGE1947]

Don’t think there’d be much future in the other side of it!

 

[tvknight415]

I sure hope the man found the non-smoking side of the afterlife!!!

I’m planning to smoke for at least a little while after I’m gone.

How long does one remain at the crematory?!?!?!

 

[LegoGE1947]

I’m planning to smoke for at least a little while after I’m gone.

How long does one remain at the crematory?!?!?!

As one early martyr might have said as he was being burned on a grill, “When you’re done on both sides!”

 

[Granum_Frumenti]

Matt 1:25 that Joseph took Mary as wife but “knew her not until she had borne a son…” The RSV footnote to this reads " This means only that Joseph had nothing to do with the conception of Jesus. It implies nothing as to what happened afterward"

The RSV is a Protestant version, so the footnotes will reflect that perspective.

But it’s not a footnote in what I’ll call a “plain” RSV (a version that’s not, say, a study Bible).

When I started reading this thread, I was surprised because I’ve had a copy of a “plain” original version for years. Its footnotes are probably all what I’ll call textual notes, not what I’ll call interpretive notes as the quoted footnote is. (I’m not sure if I’ve read the entire Protestant-canon RSV, but I can say with some certainty that I’ve never encountered a footnote of that nature in this Bible.)

I looked in that copy of mine to confirm my memory. As I thought, there is no such note in my copy of the RSV. The five footnotes that do appear for Matthew 1 are textual (for instance, Greek versions of names in the genealogy).

Matthew 1:18-25 in the RSV has only one footnote, a textual one, but Matthew 1:18-25 in the RSV-CE also has the one quoted above. I’ll do some more looking and report back.]

 

[rotlex]

Catholic all my life and this verse, and the Catholic arguments, still confuse me.

I fully understand all the arguments regarding “until the day, he, she etc. died”. However, in the case of this verse, Mary did not “die” after giving birth to Christ. The verse says “knew her not until she had borne a son”. I could see if she died afterward, but honestly, to anyone just reading this it says that yeah, he probably “knew” her after her child was born,

I still don’t understand, even after reading lots of explanations on it, the whole until ill arguments etc., how this really defends anything.

With that said, I as a Catholic, do not believe that Mary had sexual relations with anyone ever, but the arguments given for it generally make no sense to me. The best argument in my mind is simply that Mary held the Son of God in her womb. That alone is enough for me to believe she never had relations after.

 

[TimothyH]

This thread illustrates why I don’t read the footnotes.

The footnotes are not the Bible. The Bible is the breathed word of God. The footnotes were added later by men to explain the breathed word of God but many times they just confuse people more.

It is better to pray, read, ask for understanding, pray some more, and if something is difficult then let it go and listen to the Church. God will speak through his word - it does not come back void. Many times God will say, “I know you are interested in Mary’s perpetual virginity but I have something else to show you which will profit you more.”

Why struggle with footnotes?

-Tim-

 

[LegoGE1947]

Catholic all my life and this verse, and the Catholic arguments, still confuse me.

I fully understand all the arguments regarding “until the day, he, she etc. died”. However, in the case of this verse, Mary did not “die” after giving birth to Christ. The verse says “knew her not until she had borne a son”. I could see if she died afterward, but honestly, to anyone just reading this it says that yeah, he probably “knew” her after her child was born,

I still don’t understand, even after reading lots of explanations on it, the whole until ill arguments etc., how this really defends anything.

With that said, I as a Catholic, do not believe that Mary had sexual relations with anyone ever, but the arguments given for it generally make no sense to me. The best argument in my mind is simply that Mary held the Son of God in her womb. That alone is enough for me to believe she never had relations after.

I did look this verse up in the NAB bible and the footnote there says basically the same thing that “Joseph had nothing to do with conceiving Jesus and that this verse says nothing one way or other of what happened after Jesus was born.” Like others here, the best argument to me is simply that Mary did give birth to the Son of God and as such her womb was holy.

 

[LegoGE1947]

This thread illustrates why I don’t read the footnotes.

The footnotes are not the Bible. The Bible is the breathed word of God. The footnotes were added later by men to explain the breathed word of God but many times they just confuse people more.

It is better to pray, read, ask for understanding, pray some more, and if something is difficult then let it go and listen to the Church. God will speak through his word - it does not come back void. Many times God will say, “I know you are interested in Mary’s perpetual virginity but I have something else to show you which will profit you more.”

Why struggle with footnotes?

-Tim-

I got in trouble with footnotes when I was a Protestant and reading their study Bibles. They basically led to confusion and frustration which frankly I didn’t need and still don’t.

 

[rotlex]

I did look this verse up in the NAB bible and the footnote there says basically the same thing that “Joseph had nothing to do with conceiving Jesus and that this verse says nothing one way or other of what happened after Jesus was born.” Like others here,** the best argument to me is simply that Mary did give birth to the Son of God and as such her womb was holy**.

This. Exactly.