Sifting through the "Mary's"-rebutting the "brothers of Jesus" fallacy

[elvisman]

You make a bold claim, but can you back it up with examples from the available Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts produced in that time and place?

John

Mary, the mother of James and Joses is Mary the mother of Jesus. By nature of her betrothal to Joseph, it is perfectly natural to refer to her as the mother of his existing children.
It is also known that Salome, the husband of Zebedee and mother of the apostles James and John, is actually the daughter of Joseph. Jesus was the uncle of James and John, not their cousin.

John

You also make some bold claims.
Can YOU back YOURS up with some proof?

To state that “it is known” Salome, the husband of Zebedee and mother of the apostles James and John, is actually the daughter of Joseph" - has no validity unless you can prove it.

 

[elvisman]

Correct John 19:25 has them coming closer but it remains that this view has Matthew and Mark omitting the mother of Jesus! My view does not
And you know that 10:3 refers to James the younger how?

Boy - talk about having to do some rather complex Scriptural acrobatics to arrive at yout conclusion . . .
Are you saying that John lied when he differentiated the 2 Marys??**

Matt. 27:56** says,* “Among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph*, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee”.**

Mark 15:40** states, "There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome").**
The authors NEVER would have left out her most important child, JESUS – IF this were Mary, his mother. The ENTIRE Gospel is about him – why leave him out now??

Finally, John 19:25 states, "But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene".
When you compare the different accounts of the crucifixion, they clearly show the mother of James and Joseph to be the wife of Clopas (also called, Alphaeus) – not Mary, the Mother of Jesus. Any attempt to connect these people as uterine brothers of Jesus are squashed by the Bible.

 

[Nicea325]

Boy - talk about having to do some rather complex Scriptural acrobatics to arrive at yout conclusion . . .
Are you saying that John lied** when he differentiated the 2 Marys??

Matt. 27:56** says,* “Among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph***, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee”.

Mark 15:40** states, "There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome**").
The authors NEVER would have left out her most important child, JESUS – IF this were Mary, his mother. The ENTIRE Gospel is about him – why leave him out now??

Finally, John 19:25 states, "But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene".
**When you compare the different accounts of the crucifixion, they clearly **show the mother of James and Joseph to be the wife of Clopas (also called, Alphaeus) – not Mary, the Mother of Jesus. Any attempt to connect these people as uterine brothers of Jesus are squashed by the Bible.

Exactly! I do not understand why so many non-Catholics insist Mary had other children or that it would have been odd for her not to have more children.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Exactly! I do not understand why so many non-Catholics insist Mary had other children or that it would have been odd for her not to have more children.

Because of the modern secular understanding of sexuality. They also have problems with celibacy.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Argument from silence is not “proof”.

There were only two men named James who were apostles. James the son of Zebedee and James the son of Alphaeus(the younger). Look at the lists that the gospels give of the Twelve.

Are you under the impression that only the twelve were apostles?

 

[Rightlydivide]

Boy - talk about having to do some rather complex Scriptural acrobatics to arrive at yout conclusion . . .
Are you saying that John lied** when he differentiated the 2 Marys??

Matt. 27:56** says,* “Among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph***, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee”.

Mark 15:40** states, "There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome**").
The authors NEVER would have left out her most important child, JESUS – IF this were Mary, his mother. The ENTIRE Gospel is about him – why leave him out now??

Finally, John 19:25 states, "But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene".
**When you compare the different accounts of the crucifixion, they clearly **show the mother of James and Joseph to be the wife of Clopas (also called, Alphaeus) – not Mary, the Mother of Jesus. Any attempt to connect these people as uterine brothers of Jesus are squashed by the Bible.

Clopas and Alphaeus are not the same person.
You know that I am not calling John a liar Elvisman.
Thank you

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

Clopas and Alphaeus are not the same person.
You know that I am not calling John a liar Elvisman.
Thank you

So I guess next you’re going to say that Saul and Paul are not the same person?

Simon and Peter must not be the same person either.

 

[Rightlydivide]

So I guess next you’re going to say that Saul and Paul are not the same person?

Simon and Peter must not be the same person either.

No, I am not saying that. What is your rationale for them being the same person?

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

No, I am not saying that. What is your rationale for them being the same person?

The Aramaic name for Alphaeus cane be rendered in different ways, either as Alphaeus OR Clopas(Cleophas).

 

[Rightlydivide]

The Aramaic name for Alphaeus cane be rendered in different ways, either as Alphaeus OR Clopas(Cleophas).

Etymologically, however, the identification of the two names offers serious difficulties: (1) Although the letter Heth is occasionally rendered in Greek by Kappa at the end and in the middle of words, it is very seldom so in the beginning, where the aspirate is better protected; examples of this, however, are given by Levy (Sem. Fremdwörter in Griech.); but (2) even if this difficulty was met, Clopas would suppose an Aramaic Halophai, not Halpai. (3) The Syriac versions have rendered the Greek Clopas with a Qoph, not with a Heth, as they would have done naturally had they been conscious of the identity of Clopas and Halpai; Alphaeus is rendered with Heth (occasionally Aleph). For these reasons, others see in Clopas a substitute for Cleopas, with the contraction of eo into w. In Greek, it is true, eo is not contracted into w, but a Semite, borrowing a name did not necessarily follow the rules of Greek contraction. In fact, in Mishnic Hebrew the name Cleopatra is rendered by Clopatra, and hence the Greek Cleopas might be rendered by Clopas. .

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

What is this source and why should his opinion mean anything to me? You may see “difficulties” but show me where a difficulty equals an impossibility?

 

[Rightlydivide]

What is this source and why should his opinion mean anything to me? You may see “difficulties” but show me where a difficulty equals an impossibility?

Catholic Encyclopedia

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

Typical attempt at a “gotcha”…

The Catholic Encyclopedia(I at least have the integrity to mention my source before i post it):
Brethren of the Lord, the.—A group of persons closely connected with the Savior appears repeatedly in the New Testament under the designation “his brethren”, or “the brethren of the Lord” (Matt., xii, 46; xiii, 55; Mark, iii, 31, 32; vi, 3; Luke, 19, 20; John, ii, 12; vii, 3, 5; Acts, i, 14; I Cor., ix, 5). Four such “brethren” are mentioned by name in the parallel texts of Matt., xiii, 55, and Mark, vi, 3 (where “sisters” are also referred to), namely, James (also mentioned Gal., i, 19), Joseph, or Joses, Simon, and Jude; the incidental manner in which these names are given, shows, however, that the list lays no claim to completeness. Two questions in connection with these “brethren” of the Lord have long been, and are now more than ever, the subject of controversy: (I) The identity of James, Jude, and Simon; (2) The exact nature of the relationship between the Savior and his “brethren”.

(I) James is without doubt the Bishop of Jerusalem (Acts, xii, 17; xv, 13; xxi, 18; Gal., i, 19; ii, 9, 12) and the author of the first Catholic Epistle. His identity with James the Less (Mark, xv, 40) and the Apostle James, the son of Alpheus (Matt., x, 3; Mark, iii, 18), although contested by many Protestant critics, may also be considered as certain. There is no reasonable doubt that in Gal., i, 19: “But other of the apostles [besides Cephas] I saw none, saving James the brother of the Lord”, St. Paul represents James as a member of the Apostolic college. The purpose for which the statement is made, makes it clear that “apostles” is to be taken strictly to designate the Twelve, and its truthfulness demands that the clause “saving James” be understood to mean, that in addition to Cephas, St. Paul saw another Apostle, “James the brother of the Lord” (cf. Acts, ix, 27). Besides, the prominence and authority of James among the Apostles (Acts, xv, 13; Gal., ii, 9; in the latter text he is even named before Cephas) could have belonged only to one of their number. **Now there were only two Apostles named James: James the son of Zebedee, and James the son of Alpheus (Matt., x, 3; Mark, iii, 18; Luke, vi, 16; Acts, i, 13). **

The former is out of the question, since he was dead at the time of the events to which Acts, xv, 6 sqq., and Gal., ii, 9, 12, refer (cf. Acts, xii, 2). James “the brother of the Lord” is therefore one with James the son of Alpheus, and consequently with James the Less, the identity of these two being generally conceded. Again, on comparing John, xix, 25, with Matt., xxvii, 56, and Mark, xv, 40 (cf. Mark, xv, 47; xvi, 1),** we find that Mary of Cleophas, or more correctly Clopas (Kawaas), the sister of Mary the Mother of Christ, is the same as Mary the mother of James the Less and of Joseph, or Joses.** As married women are not distinguished by the addition of their father’s name, Mary of Clopas must be the wife of Clopas, and not his daughter, as has been maintained. Moreover, the names of her sons and the order in which they are given, no doubt the order of seniority, warrant us in identifying these sons with James and Joseph, or Joses, the “brethren” of the Lord. The existence among the early followers of Christ of two sets of brothers having the same names in the order of age, is not likely, and cannot be assumed without proof. Once this identity is conceded, the conclusion cannot well be avoided that Clopas and Alpheus are one person, even if the two names are quite distinct. It is, however, highly probable, and commonly admitted, that Clopas and Alpheus are merely different transcriptions of the same Aramaic word Halphai. James and Joseph the “brethren” of the Lord are thus the sons of Alpheus.

If you’re going to posit a passage of the Encyclopedia that “seems” to prove your point you must also agree with this passage as well.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Typical attempt at a “gotcha”…

The Catholic Encyclopedia(I at least have the integrity to mention my source before i post it):
Brethren of the Lord, the.—A group of persons closely connected with the Savior appears repeatedly in the New Testament under the designation “his brethren”, or “the brethren of the Lord” (Matt., xii, 46; xiii, 55; Mark, iii, 31, 32; vi, 3; Luke, 19, 20; John, ii, 12; vii, 3, 5; Acts, i, 14; I Cor., ix, 5). Four such “brethren” are mentioned by name in the parallel texts of Matt., xiii, 55, and Mark, vi, 3 (where “sisters” are also referred to), namely, James (also mentioned Gal., i, 19), Joseph, or Joses, Simon, and Jude; the incidental manner in which these names are given, shows, however, that the list lays no claim to completeness. Two questions in connection with these “brethren” of the Lord have long been, and are now more than ever, the subject of controversy: (I) The identity of James, Jude, and Simon; (2) The exact nature of the relationship between the Savior and his “brethren”.

(I) James is without doubt the Bishop of Jerusalem (Acts, xii, 17; xv, 13; xxi, 18; Gal., i, 19; ii, 9, 12) and the author of the first Catholic Epistle. His identity with James the Less (Mark, xv, 40) and the Apostle James, the son of Alpheus (Matt., x, 3; Mark, iii, 18), although contested by many Protestant critics, may also be considered as certain. There is no reasonable doubt that in Gal., i, 19: “But other of the apostles [besides Cephas] I saw none, saving James the brother of the Lord”, St. Paul represents James as a member of the Apostolic college. The purpose for which the statement is made, makes it clear that “apostles” is to be taken strictly to designate the Twelve, and its truthfulness demands that the clause “saving James” be understood to mean, that in addition to Cephas, St. Paul saw another Apostle, “James the brother of the Lord” (cf. Acts, ix, 27). Besides, the prominence and authority of James among the Apostles (Acts, xv, 13; Gal., ii, 9; in the latter text he is even named before Cephas) could have belonged only to one of their number. **Now there were only two Apostles named James: James the son of Zebedee, and James the son of Alpheus (Matt., x, 3; Mark, iii, 18; Luke, vi, 16; Acts, i, 13). **

The former is out of the question, since he was dead at the time of the events to which Acts, xv, 6 sqq., and Gal., ii, 9, 12, refer (cf. Acts, xii, 2). James “the brother of the Lord” is therefore one with James the son of Alpheus, and consequently with James the Less, the identity of these two being generally conceded. Again, on comparing John, xix, 25, with Matt., xxvii, 56, and Mark, xv, 40 (cf. Mark, xv, 47; xvi, 1),** we find that Mary of Cleophas, or more correctly Clopas (Kawaas), the sister of Mary the Mother of Christ, is the same as Mary the mother of James the Less and of Joseph, or Joses.** As married women are not distinguished by the addition of their father’s name, Mary of Clopas must be the wife of Clopas, and not his daughter, as has been maintained. Moreover, the names of her sons and the order in which they are given, no doubt the order of seniority, warrant us in identifying these sons with James and Joseph, or Joses, the “brethren” of the Lord. The existence among the early followers of Christ of two sets of brothers having the same names in the order of age, is not likely, and cannot be assumed without proof. Once this identity is conceded, the conclusion cannot well be avoided that Clopas and Alpheus are one person, even if the two names are quite distinct. It is, however, highly probable, and commonly admitted, that Clopas and Alpheus are merely different transcriptions of the same Aramaic word Halphai. James and Joseph the “brethren” of the Lord are thus the sons of Alpheus.

If you’re going to posit a passage of the Encyclopedia that “seems” to prove your point you must also agree with this passage as well.

The names are distinct as it admits and not the same person. Curiously, the part you posted makes assertion but offers no real evidence to support any view!
You have undoubtedly read our view and I have read yours. Take care.

 

[Roy5]

It doesn’t make a whit of difference to me whether or not Mary had other children. She was, after all, married to Joseph, and married people normally enjoy sexual relations as a way of expressing their love and intimacy.

 The main argument in my mind that suggests that she did not have other children is that Christ on the cross placed her under the care of the disciple John. If he had had brothers that would have been unlikely, though still possible, as John may have been the only one there to assume that responsibility for a widowed mother.

  I do, however, think that Matt. 1:25 suggests that Mary and Joseph had relations after the birth of Jesus. That doesn't trouble me for a moment. Why not?

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

St Jerome-“against Helvidius”
“BEFORE THEY CAME TOGETHER”

But when he continues, “the Evangelist would never have applied the words, ‘before they came together’ to persons who were not to come together, any more than one says, ‘before he dined,’ when the man is not going to dine,” I know not whether to grieve or laugh. Shall I convict him of ignorance, or accuse him of rashness? Just as if, supposing a person to say, “Before dining in harbor, I sailed to Africa,” his words could not hold good unless he were compelled some day to dine in harbor. If I choose to say, “the apostle Paul, before he went to Spain, was put in fetters at Rome,” or (as I certainly might) “Helvidius, before he repented, was cut off by death,” must Paul, on being released, at once go to Spain, or must Helvidius repent after death, although the Scripture says “In sheol who shall give you thanks?” [Ps. 6:5].

Must we not rather understand that the preposition ‘before,’ although it frequently denotes order in time, yet sometimes refers only to order in thought? So there is no necessity (if sufficient cause intervened to prevent it) for our thoughts to be realized.

When, then, the Evangelist says “before they came together,” he indicates the time immediately preceding marriage, and shows that matters were so far advanced that she who had been betrothed was on the point of becoming a wife, as though he said, “before they kissed and embraced, before the consummation of marriage, she was found to be with child.” And she was found to be so by none other than Joseph, who watched the swelling womb of his betrothed with the anxious glances, and, at this time, almost the privilege, of a husband.

Yet it does not follow, as the previous examples showed, that he had intercourse with Mary after her delivery, when his desires had been quenched by the fact that she had already conceived. And although we find it said to Joseph in a dream, "Fear not to take Mary your wife " [Matt. 1:20]; and again, “Joseph arose from his sleep, and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took unto him his wife” [Matt. 1:24], no one ought to be disturbed by this, as though, inasmuch as she is called “wife,” she ceases to be betrothed, for we know it is usual in Scripture to give the title “wife”] to those who are betrothed.

The following evidence from Deuteronomy establishes the point. “If the man,” says the writer, “finds the damsel that is betrothed in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her, he shall surely die, because he has humbled his neighbor’s wife” [Deut. 22:25-27].

And in another place, “If there be a damsel that is a virgin betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; then you shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and you shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he has humbled his neighbor’s wife: so you shall put away the evil from the midst of you” [Deut. 22:23-24].

Elsewhere also, “And what man is there that has betrothed a wife, and has not taken her? let him go and return unto his house, lest he die in the battle, and another man take her” [Deut. 20:7].

But if anyone feels a doubt as to why the Virgin conceived after she was betrothed rather than when she had no one betrothed to her, or, to use the Scripture phrase, no “husband,” let me explain that there were three reasons – First, that by the genealogy of Joseph, whose kinswoman Mary was, Mary’s origin might also be shown. Secondly, that she might not be stoned as an adulteress in accordance with the Law of Moses. Thirdly, that in her flight to Egypt she might have some comfort, though it was that of a guardian rather than a husband. For who at that time would have believed the Virgin’s word that she had conceived of the Holy Spirit, and that the Angel Gabriel had come and announced the purpose of God? And would not all have given their opinion against her as an adulteress, like Susanna [Dan. 13]?

Lastly, excepting Joseph, and Elizabeth, and Mary herself, and some few others who, we may suppose, heard the truth from them, all considered Jesus to be the son of Joseph. And so far was this the case that even the Evangelists, expressing the prevailing opinion, which is the correct rule for a historian, call him the father of the Savior, as, for instance, “And he (that is, Simeon) came in the Spirit into the Temple. And when the parents brought in the child Jesus, that they might do concerning him after the custom of the Law” [Luke 2:27], and elsewhere, “And his parents went every year to Jerusalem at the feast of the Passover” [Luke 2:41]. And afterwards, “And when they had fulfilled the days, as they were returning, the boy Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem; and his parents knew not of it” [Luke 2:43].

Observe also what Mary herself, who had replied to Gabriel with the words, “How shall this be, seeing I know not man?” [Luke 1:34, literal translation from Greek], says concerning Joseph, “Son, why have you thus dealt with us? Behold, your father and I sought you anxiously” [Luke 2:48]. We have not here, as many maintain, the utterance of Jews or of mockers. The Evangelists call Joseph “father.” Mary confesses he was father. Not (as I said before) that Joseph was really the father of the Savior, but that to preserve the reputation of Mary he was regarded by all as his father, although before he heard the admonition of the angel, “Joseph, son of David, fear not to take unto you Mary your wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit” [Matt. 1:20] he had thoughts of putting her away quietly; which shows that he well knew that the child conceived was not his.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

St Jerome-“Against Helvidius”(cont.)
“TILL”

1. This, however, is a point which will find its proper place further on. We must now move on to other matters. The passage for discussion now is, “And Joseph arose from his sleep, and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took unto him his wife and knew her not till she had brought forth a son, and he called his name Jesus” [Matt. 1:24-25].

Here, first of all, it is quite needless for our opponent to show so elaborately that the word “know” has reference to coitus, rather than to intellectual apprehension, as though anyone denied it or any person in his senses could ever imagine the folly which Helvidius takes pains to refute.

Then he would teach us that the adverb “till” implies a fixed and definite time, and when that is fulfilled, he says the event takes place which previously did not take place, as in the case before us, “and knew her not till she had brought forth a son.” It is clear, says he, that she was known after she brought forth, and that that knowledge was only delayed by her engendering a son. To defend his position he piles up text upon text, waves his sword like a blindfolded gladiator, rattles his noisy tongue, and ends with wounding no one but himself.

1. Our reply is briefly this – the words “knew” and “till” in the language of Holy Scripture are capable of a double meaning.

As to the former, he himself gave us a dissertation to show that it must be referred to sexual intercourse, and no one doubts that it is often used of the knowledge of the understanding, as, for instance, “the boy Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem, and his parents knew it not.”

Now we have to prove that just as in the one case he has followed the usage of Scripture, so with regard to the word “till” he is utterly refuted by the authority of the same Scripture, which often denotes by its “till”'s] use a fixed time (he himself told us so) [and] frequently time without limitation, as when God by the mouth of the prophet says to certain persons, “Even unto old age I am He” [Is. 46:4]. Will He cease to be God when they have grown old?

And the Savior in the Gospel tells the Apostles, “Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world” [Matt. 28:20b]. Will the Lord then after the end of the world has come forsake His disciples, and at the very time when seated on twelve thrones they are to judge the twelve tribes of Israel will they be bereft of the company of their Lord?

Again Paul the Apostle writing to the Corinthians says, “Christ the first-fruits, afterward they that are Christ’s, at his coming. Then comes the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father, when he shall have put down all rule, and all authority and power. For he must reign, till he has put all enemies under his feet” [1 Cor. 15:23-25]. Granted that the passage relates to our Lord’s human nature, we do not deny that the words are spoken of Him who endured the cross and is commanded to sit afterwards on the right hand. What does he mean then by saying, “for he must reign, till he has put all enemies under his feet”? Is the Lord to reign only until His enemies begin to be under His feet, and once they are under His feet will He cease to reign? Of course His reign will then commence in its fullness when His enemies begin to be under His feet [cf. Luke 1:33, Rev. 11:15].

David also in the fourth Song of Ascent [Ps. 123] speaks thus, “Behold, as the eyes of servants look unto the hand of their master, as the eyes of a maiden unto the hand of her mistress, so our eyes look unto the Lord our God till he has mercy upon us” [Ps. 123:2] Will the prophet, then, look unto the Lord till he obtain mercy, and when mercy is obtained will he turn his eyes down to the ground? – although elsewhere he says, “Mine eyes fail for your salvation, and for the word of your righteousness” [Ps. 119:123].

I could accumulate countless instances of this usage, and cover the verbosity of our assailant with a cloud of proofs; I shall, however, add only a few, and leave the reader to discover like ones for himself.

1. The word of God says in Genesis, “And they gave unto Jacob all the strange gods which were in their hand, and the rings which were in their ears; and Jacob hid them under the oak which was by Shechem, and lost them till this day” [Gen. 35:4].

Likewise at the end of Deuteronomy, “So Moses the servant of the Lord died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of the Lord. And he buried him in the valley, in the land of Moab over against Beth-Peor. But no man knows of his sepulcher unto this day” [Deut. 34:5-6].

We must certainly understand by “this day” the time of the composition of the history, whether you prefer the view that Moses was the author of the Pentateuch or that Ezra re-edited it. In either case I make no objection. The question now is whether the words “unto this day” are to be referred to the time of publishing or writing the books, and if so it is for him to show, now that so many years have rolled away since that day, that either the idols hidden beneath the oak have been found, or the grave of Moses discovered; for he obstinately maintains that what does not happen so long as the point of time indicated by “till” and “unto” has not been attained, begins to be when that point has been reached.

He would do well to pay heed to the idiom of Holy Scripture, and understand with us (it was here he stuck in the mud) that some things which might seem ambiguous if not expressed are plainly intimated, while others are left to the exercise of our intellect. For if, while the event was still fresh in memory and men were living who had seen Moses, it was possible for his grave to be unknown, much more may this be the case after the lapse of so many ages.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

cont.
And in the same way must we interpret what we are told concerning Joseph. The Evangelist pointed out a circumstance which might have given rise to some scandal, namely, that Mary was not known by her husband until she had delivered [her Son], and he did so that we might be the more certain that she, from whom Joseph refrained while there was room to doubt the import of the vision, was not known after her delivery.

1. In short, what I want to know is why Joseph refrained until the day of her delivery?

Helvidius will of course reply, “Because he heard the angel say, ‘that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit’” [Matt. 1:20b]. And in turn we rejoin that he had certainly heard him say, “Joseph, you son of David, fear not to take unto you Mary your wife” [Matt. 1:20a]. The reason why he was forbidden to forsake his wife was that he might not think her an adulteress. Is it true then, that he was ordered not to have intercourse with his wife? Is it not plain that the warning was given him that he might not be separated from her? And could the just man dare, he says, to think of approaching her, when he heard that the Son of God was in her womb?

Excellent! We are to believe then that the same man who gave so much credit to a dream that he did not dare to touch his wife, yet afterwards, when he had learnt from the shepherds that the angel of the Lord had come from heaven and said to them, “Be not afraid: for behold I bring you good tidings of great joy which shall be to all people, for there is born to you this day in the city of David a Savior, which is Christ the Lord” [Luke 2:10ff], and when the heavenly host had joined with him in the chorus “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among men of good will” [Luke 2:14], and when he had seen just Simeon embrace the infant and exclaim, “Now let you your servant depart, O Lord, according to your word in peace: for mine eyes have seen your salvation” [Luke 2:29], and when he had seen Anna the prophetess, the Magi, the Star, Herod, the angels; Helvidius, I say, would have us believe that Joseph, though well acquainted with such surprising wonders, dared to touch the temple of God, the abode of the Holy Spirit, the mother of his Lord?

Mary at all events “kept all these sayings in her heart” [Luke 2:51]. You cannot for shame say Joseph did not know of them, for Luke tells us, “His father and mother were marveling at the things which were spoken concerning Him” [Luke 2:33]. And yet you [Helvidius] with marvelous effrontery contend that the reading of the Greek manuscripts is corrupt, although it is that which nearly all the Greek writers have left us in their books, and not only so, but several of the Latin writers have taken the words the same way. Nor need we now consider the variations in the copies, since the whole record both of the Old and New Testament has since that time been translated into Latin, and we must believe that the water of the fountain flows purer than that of the stream.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

(concluded)
9. Helvidius will answer, “What you say, is m my opinion mere trifling. Your arguments are so much waste of time, and the discussion shows more subtlety than truth. Why could not Scripture say, as it said of Tamar and Judah, ’ And he took his wife, and knew her again no more’ [Gen. 38:26]? Could not Matthew find words to express his meaning? ’ He knew her not,’ he says, ‘until she brought forth a son.’ He did then, after her delivery, know her, whom he had refrained from knowing until she was delivered.”

1. If you are so contentious, your own thoughts shall now prove your master. You must not allow any time to intervene between delivery and intercourse. You must not say, “If a woman conceive seed and bear a man child, then she shall be unclean seven days; as in the days of the separation of her sickness shall she be unclean. And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. And she shall continue in the blood of her purifying three and thirty days. She shall touch no hallowed thing” [Lev. 12:2-3], and so forth.

On your showing, Joseph must at once approach, her, and be subject to Jeremiah’s reproof, “They were as mad horses in respect of women: every one neighed after his neighbor’s wife” [Jer. 5:8]. Otherwise, how can the words stand good, “he knew her not, till she had brought forth a son,” if he waits after the time of another purifying has expired, if his lust must brook another long delay of forty days?

The mother must go unpurged from her child-bed taint, and the wailing infant be attended to by the midwives, while the husband clasps his exhausted wife. Thus indeed must their married life begin so that the Evangelist may not be convicted of falsehood.

But God forbid that we should think thus of the Savior’s mother and of a just man. No midwife assisted at His birth; no women’s officiousness intervened. With her own hands she wrapped Him in the swaddling clothes, herself both mother and midwife, “and laid Him,” we are told, “in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn” [Luke 2:7]; a statement which, on the one hand, refutes the ravings of the apocryphal accounts, for Mary herself wrapped Him in the swaddling clothes, and on the other makes the voluptuous notion of Helvidius impossible, since there was no place suitable for married intercourse in the inn.

 

[Rightlydivide]

It doesn’t make a whit of difference to me whether or not Mary had other children. She was, after all, married to Joseph, and married people normally enjoy sexual relations as a way of expressing their love and intimacy.

 The main argument in my mind that suggests that she did not have other children is that Christ on the cross placed her under the care of the disciple John. If he had had brothers that would have been unlikely, though still possible, as John may have been the only one there to assume that responsibility for a widowed mother.

  I do, however, think that Matt. 1:25 suggests that Mary and Joseph had relations after the birth of Jesus. That doesn't trouble me for a moment. Why not?

Well the men travelled with her and so forth so they were together enough to be close to her and thus why not them? Catholics and Orthodox either think they are her step-sons or nephews.
But John, who many Catholics believe is a nephew, was there. That argument is a wash either way really.