The NIV and Matthew 1:25

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mgray82
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Mgray82

Guest
The NIV translations says;

But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus. (Matthew 1:25 NIV)

The Douay Rheims reads;

And he knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS. (Matthew 1:25 DRA)

Obviously this is a classic case for Mary’s perpetual virginity. Is there any validity in the translation for “consummate”? Or is this the typical Protestant way of editing the bible…

Answers? Thoughts?
 
The NIV translations says;

But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus. (Matthew 1:25 NIV)

The Douay Rheims reads;

And he knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS. (Matthew 1:25 DRA)

Obviously this is a classic case for Mary’s perpetual virginity. Is there any validity in the translation for “consummate”? Or is this the typical Protestant way of editing the bible…

Answers? Thoughts?
I am not familiar with this term. The NIV-CE is a very respectable translation.

The NAB translates it as:

He had no **relations **with her until she bore a son, and he named him Jesus.

Here is the footnote for that verse:
  • [1:25] Until she bore a son: the evangelist is concerned to emphasize that Joseph was not responsible for the conception of Jesus. The Greek word translated “until” does not imply normal marital conduct after Jesus’ birth, nor does it exclude it.
 
The DR simply states he didn’t have sex with her before Jesus was born. Someone could argue that the “until” implies sex after that, but it doesn’t have to do that because, by that logic, Jesus’ saying that He will be with us until the end of the age means He’ll abandon us after that. The NIV finagles it into implying that their marriage was a normal one with sex expected and all. That translation style is called Dynamic Equivalence and was pretty much responsible for the awful old Mass translation. Very loose. The ESV was created to counteract it actually. Protestants are sick of the loosey-goosey too.
 
Obviously this is a classic case for Mary’s perpetual virginity. Is there any validity in the translation for “consummate”? Or is this the typical Protestant way of editing the bible…
In the Greek, the word is ‘know’ (γινώσκω, or, in the form it appears in this verse, ἐγίνωσκεν). It means ‘know’ in the way that we use it, but it also can have the sense of sexual intimacy. In Luke 1, Mary really asks “How can this be, since I do not know man?” – the word there is also γινώσκω.

The real question, though, isn’t about the word that signifies sexual intercourse – it’s the question of what Matthew’s getting at in this passage. He uses the word ‘until’ (ἕως), and when we look at it from an English-speaker’s perspective, we presume that ‘until’ speaks both to the past (what happened up ‘until’ that time) and the future (what happens ‘after’ that time). If I said that I didn’t eat “until dinnertime”, there’s the certain presumption that I did eat after dinnertime. However, that’s not necessarily the case in all languages and their prepositions. The Koine Greek preposition ἕως can speak to what happens before without the implication of what happens after. (An example that’s often encountered in this context is 2 Sam 6:23 – in the Greek, talking about David’s wife (and Saul’s daughter) Michal, this verse says that she remained childless until (ἕως) the day that she died. Now, this doesn’t imply that after this point, she had children!)

So, when we look at what Matthew was trying to do, we notice that he’s trying to demonstrate that Jesus was conceived of the Holy Spirit and not of Joseph. (After all, a non-believer who was told that Jesus is God would naturally counter, “no, he’s not! He was born of normal relations between Mary and Joseph!”) So, what Matthew’s trying to do here is demonstrate that there’s no way that Jesus is Joseph’s natural son: Mary didn’t have relations with Joseph prior to Jesus’ birth. But, there’s nothing there that demonstrates that Mary did have relations with Joseph after the birth of Jesus.

Hope this helps!

G.
 
The NIV translations says;

But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus. (Matthew 1:25 NIV)

The Douay Rheims reads;

And he knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS. (Matthew 1:25 DRA)

Obviously this is a classic case for Mary’s perpetual virginity. Is there any validity in the translation for “consummate”? Or is this the typical Protestant way of editing the bible…

Answers? Thoughts?
The word “until” is used idiomatically. Consider the sentence, “Sam never drank alcohol until the day he died”.

Did Sam drink alcohol after the day he died? No.

Same with Mary and Joseph. They neither consummated until the birth of their son, nor after.
 
I don’t see where it matters.

As a former protestant, (Lutheran) it was never an issue one way or the other. Mary and Joseph loved and respected each other as husband and wife and that is all that mattered. Joseph stuck by her in the face of the adversity caused by the pregnancy. Of course with a little intervention by an angel, but he did.

Since there was never any mention of any other brothers and sisters being born in the bible, we just assume there were not any. Then as an additional proof, on the cross, Jesus gave Mary to John as his mother. As a result, Mary is our mother too, and we respect that.
 
I don’t see where it matters.

As a former protestant, (Lutheran) it was never an issue one way or the other. Mary and Joseph loved and respected each other as husband and wife and that is all that mattered. Joseph stuck by her in the face of the adversity caused by the pregnancy. Of course with a little intervention by an angel, but he did.
It does matter because Mary is the new Eve and the New Ark of the Covenant.
She is the Holy of Holies which the priest was only allowed to enter once a year.

It is necessary to believe that Mary remained ever virgin in order to understand how the Catholic faith is Biblicaly based and foretold in the OT and revealed in Revelations…
 
Good replies so far. Thanks.

However, this post isn’t intended to discuss Mary’s virginity.

I’m basically curious how or why the NIV would’ve got “consummate” out of the Greek. Mostly all translations I have read say “till” or “until”

I am completely aware of Marian Dogma and this particular argument vs. Protestants view of this verse…

Many Protestants are by the book, bible believing Christians…how do we get this word translated to “consummate”?
 
Many Protestants are by the book, bible believing Christians…how do we get this word translated to “consummate”?
Because that’s the force of the word “know” in this passage: it’s sexual intercourse, in the context of a married couple who hadn’t had intercourse up to that point. “Consummate” would be one way of describing this. 🤷
 
In the Greek, the word is ‘know’ (γινώσκω, or, in the form it appears in this verse, ἐγίνωσκεν). It means ‘know’ in the way that we use it, but it also can have the sense of sexual intimacy. In Luke 1, Mary really asks “How can this be, since I do not know man?” – the word there is also γινώσκω.

The real question, though, isn’t about the word that signifies sexual intercourse – it’s the question of what Matthew’s getting at in this passage. He uses the word ‘until’ (ἕως), and when we look at it from an English-speaker’s perspective, we presume that ‘until’ speaks both to the past (what happened up ‘until’ that time) and the future (what happens ‘after’ that time). If I said that I didn’t eat “until dinnertime”, there’s the certain presumption that I did eat after dinnertime. However, that’s not necessarily the case in all languages and their prepositions. The Koine Greek preposition ἕως can speak to what happens before without the implication of what happens after. (An example that’s often encountered in this context is 2 Sam 6:23 – in the Greek, talking about David’s wife (and Saul’s daughter) Michal, this verse says that she remained childless until (ἕως) the day that she died. Now, this doesn’t imply that after this point, she had children!)

So, when we look at what Matthew was trying to do, we notice that he’s trying to demonstrate that Jesus was conceived of the Holy Spirit and not of Joseph. (After all, a non-believer who was told that Jesus is God would naturally counter, “no, he’s not! He was born of normal relations between Mary and Joseph!”) So, what Matthew’s trying to do here is demonstrate that there’s no way that Jesus is Joseph’s natural son: Mary didn’t have relations with Joseph prior to Jesus’ birth. But, there’s nothing there that demonstrates that Mary did have relations with Joseph after the birth of Jesus.

Hope this helps!

G.
Good insight.

I think I’m more curious how they determined “consummate” would be the intended translation.

I would presume Matthew would have mentioned that Mary and Joseph had sex at some point after Jesus’ birth, if I’m thinking as a Protestant…
 
Good replies so far. Thanks.

However, this post isn’t intended to discuss Mary’s virginity.

I’m basically curious how or why the NIV would’ve got “consummate” out of the Greek. Mostly all translations I have read say “till” or “until”

I am completely aware of Marian Dogma and this particular argument vs. Protestants view of this verse…

Many Protestants are by the book, bible believing Christians…how do we get this word translated to “consummate”?
Well then, I don’t understand what you are asking. All versions say “until” even the NIV you quoted included the “until”
The NIV translations says;
But he did not consummate their marriage** until** she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus. (Matthew 1:25 NIV)
 
Well then, I don’t understand what you are asking. All versions say “until” even the NIV you quoted included the “until”
Ah! I see lol…

Wow, I was so consumed with the word “consummate”, that I completely lost all train of thought all together.

🤷

In any case, I now know that “know” and “consummate” are the same word in Greek.

Makes sense…I’m humble enough to admit when I’m wrong or confused.
 
I think I’m more curious how they determined “consummate” would be the intended translation.
The NIV isn’t attempting to be a translation that’s either strictly a “dynamic equivalence” translation or strictly a “formal equivalence” translation. Pretty obviously, in this passage they’ve decided to go with dynamic equivalence. Having made this decision for this passage, they needed to find a word or phrase that communicates the meaning of “first sexual intercourse between a married couple”; ‘consummate’ achieves this.
 
Because that’s the force of the word “know” in this passage: it’s sexual intercourse, in the context of a married couple who hadn’t had intercourse up to that point. “Consummate” would be one way of describing this. 🤷
Where do we get “their marriage” in Greek?

But he did not consummate THEIR MARRIAGE until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus. (Matthew 1:25 NIV)
 
It does matter because Mary is the new Eve and the New Ark of the Covenant.
She is the Holy of Holies which the priest was only allowed to enter once a year.

It is necessary to believe that Mary remained ever virgin in order to understand how the Catholic faith is Biblicaly based and foretold in the OT and revealed in Revelations…
Indeed, nobody is disputing that. That is why the question doesn’t matter.
 
Ah! I see lol…

Wow, I was so consumed with the word “consummate”, that I completely lost all train of thought all together.

🤷

In any case, I now know that “know” and “consummate” are the same word in Greek.

Makes sense…I’m humble enough to admit when I’m wrong or confused.
🙂

Keeps us Catholics on our toes!
 
Indeed, nobody is disputing that. That is why the question doesn’t matter.
It matters when we are trying to defend our beliefs about Mary ever-virgin to fundamentalists. Some of them seem so focused on Mary and Joseph having children together after Jesus, I wonder if it’s not a dogma for them!
 
I don’t see where it matters.

As a former protestant, (Lutheran) it was never an issue one way or the other. Mary and Joseph loved and respected each other as husband and wife and that is all that mattered. Joseph stuck by her in the face of the adversity caused by the pregnancy. Of course with a little intervention by an angel, but he did.

Since there was never any mention of any other brothers and sisters being born in the bible, we just assume there were not any. Then as an additional proof, on the cross, Jesus gave Mary to John as his mother. As a result, Mary is our mother too, and we respect that.
It matters because Mary had one child by one spouse - the Holy Spirit.

If Mary then had other children by other spouses, then that makes her an adulterer. It is not possible for God to be the son of an adulterous woman. Such a scenario violates every concept we have of Jesus as God and as the perfect sacrifice for our sins.

If Mary had other children by other spouses, then Jesus is not the Messiah and I am converting to Judaism.

-Tim-
 
It matters because Mary had one child by one spouse - the Holy Spirit.

If Mary then had other children by other spouses, then that makes her an adulterer. It is not possible for God to be the son of an adulterous woman. Such a scenario violates every concept we have of Jesus as God and as the perfect sacrifice for our sins.

If Mary had other children by other spouses, then Jesus is not the Messiah and I am converting to Judaism.

-Tim-
You need to be careful here, Rahab is included in Jesus’ lineage. That is one reason Jews can’t believe Jesus is the Messiah.
 
Matthew 1:25
Knox Bible (KNOX)
25 and he** had not known her** when she bore a son, her first-born, to whom he gave the name Jesus.[a]
Footnotes:
Matthew 1:25 The text here is more literally rendered ‘he knew her not till she bore a son’; but the Hebrew word represented by ‘till’ does not imply that the event which might have been expected did take place afterwards. (Cf. Gen. 8.7, Ps. 109.2, Dan. 6.24, I Mac. 5.54.) So that this phrase does not impugn the perpetual virginity of our Lady. Nor is any such inference to be drawn when our Lord is called her ‘first-born’ Son, which refers to his position as redeemable under the old law (Lk. 2.23).
Knox Bible (KNOX)
Knox Bible. Copyright © 2012 Westminster Diocese. Published by Baronius Press. All rights reserved.
New International Version (©1984)
But he had** no union **with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top