Translation of the words "brother" and "cousin"

  • Thread starter Thread starter roseproject
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Here’s another way of looking at the “until” argument – Again, due to length limitations, in two parts.

As an example, I might say to someone jokingly, “Stay sober until I come back.”

The above example could have two implications; either sobriety will continue after I arrive, or sobriety will be in place only while I’m gone.

In English, when you think about it, this is a bit ambiguous, isn’t it? It really could go either way, though I would argue that the natural reading seems clear – after I arrive we’ll both start drinking. It could however also mean that neither of us will drink after my arrival.

If one argues it’s implied that sobriety would continue after I arrive, I would say that this interpretation seems a bit strained. In English, the natural reading seems clear— when I arrive, we’ll drink; until then, stay sober.

This type of ambiguity is common in some languages. Many though, have ways of completely eliminating this type of ambiguity.

Take another example. If I say “Hey, don’t start swimming until I get back, okay.”

In koiné Greek, if the preposition I use for ‘until’ is ‘heos’, the implication is that even after I get back, no swimming will occur. That’s the sort of ‘understood’ meaning.

If for the same phrase I use ‘heos hou’ for ‘until’, the implication changes a bit in that that it becomes definite –after I arrive, we will indeed start swimming.

The ambiguity over whether the initial action still occurs after another event/action occurs is eliminated. With ‘heos hou’ X will occur only up until Y happens; after Y, X will stop.

Granted, in most cases, one might consider the use of one preposition over the other to be simply a subtle change in meaning, a way to avoid any ambiguity, but for Mat. 1:25, this subtlety makes a huge difference for the rest of the narrative.

“He knew her not (un)till she had brought forth her firstborn son.”

If ‘heos’ were used, one could certainly argue that after this child was born, sexual relations continued not to occur. If, however ‘heos hou’ is used (which, of course, it is), the implication is that after the birth, normal sexual relations between the couple would commence.
 
Part 2 -

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.

And again, to be completely fair, there are, as one might suspect, arguments against the whole ‘heos’/’heos hou’ issue, but of the ones I’ve seen, I have to say that they’re not overly convincing. As mentioned in a previous post, there is a definite difference between the two; they do not both mean the exact same thing. It’s only when the phrase gets translated into other languages that ambiguity arises.

Another sensitive issue is that since the church has chosen to make Mary’s perpetual virginity dogma, it can’t very well back out of the decision. The arguments for a perpetual virginity based on Mat. 1:25 seem to involve a lot of back-paddling. I can’t imagine that these early scholars did not recognize the differences in this aspect of Greek grammar. However, as one writer put it: “Mary was idealized over time as the divine-like Holy “Mother of God.” She was so far removed from her culture and her time that the very idea that she had sexual relations, bore additional children, and lived a normal life as a married Jewish woman seemed unthinkable for centuries. She was quite literally “exalted to heaven,” and her actual humanity was lost.”

I think that says it quite well – for many early Christians, the thought of Mary having normal sexual relations with her husband after the birth of Jesus was simply too unthinkable; the solution – perpetual virginity. The author of Matthew’s gospel however seems to suggest otherwise.
 
And some interpretations suggest that these so called siblings were living at the time of His birth.
 
I think Jerome also penned this:

“Only married women who imitate the chastity of virgins within the very intimacy of marriage are holy women”.
 
“Let him he says have and use his own wife, whom he had before he became a believer , and whom it would have been good not to touch , and, when once he became a follower of Christ, to know only as a sister, not as a wife unless fornication should make it excusable to touch her.”

“If we abstain from intercourse, we give honour to our wives: if we do not abstain, it is clear that insult is the opposite of honour.”

“Since your outer man is corrupt, and you have ceased to possess the blessing of incorruption characteristic of virgins, at least imitate the incorruption of the spirit by subsequent abstinence”*

…jerome

sorry don’t have direct source save this article. i believe it is accurate, as have heard of similar things about Jerome before.

 
Last edited:
Mintaka said:
Even if a vessel could no longer be used for the Lord’s service, it was still a consecrated vessel that only the Lord could own.
Click to expand...
Is this scriptural or traditional ? Sounds good but…

I mean the Lord owns all things, and all things are to serve Him , to be holy. Not sure it is a fair comparison , that of desecrating what is holy by using it for pagan purposes, for false religious activity as the Babylonians did, and Mary and Joseph consummating a holy marriage, before the Holy God, after the birth of Jesus.
 
Examples / references??

I’m not doubting you, but would like to see these references just to understand their theories/perspectives.
 
I don’t want to veer off the subject of the thread so to keep it short, no offense intended, but Jerome seems to be pretty hung up on the idea of intimacy between married couples - not to psychoanalyze the guy, but with what little I’ve read, it sounds like he had more than a few ‘issues’, particularly with women; kind of makes one wonder what his early life was like.

As someone mentioned earlier, I think one has to take his writings on the subject with a ‘grain of salt’.
 
So, the issue with the so-called Epiphanian view, i.e. the children are Joseph’s from a previous marriage, is that it’s essentially based on the Protoevangelium of James (PJ). The PJ came about in the same time period as the Infancy Gospel of Thomas (about the latter half of the 2nd century). The Infancy Gospel of Thomas is not to be confused with the Gospel of Thomas (two different texts).

This was a time period when Christianity was growing and becoming established, people naturally craved more information on the early life of Jesus (the “missing years’) and the life of Mary (and to some extent, Joseph).

People wanted information that, of course, just didn’t exist. The authors of these texts satisfied people’s curiosity by writing what amounts to a fictional story (but based upon real people) to fill in these missing blanks. The stories, though considered pious/religious, are essentially the product of the authors’ imaginations, likely also based in part on legends, myths and stories about the Holy Family circulating at the time.

Let’s face it, on a more practical level, an older man with several children in tow, some of them older than you are, hardly makes for a good marriage prospect no matter when in time you’re living. The counterargument here being that Joseph was more a ‘guardian’ than a husband, but this is again based solely on the PJ and the ages given in the story – why else would an 80+ year old man marry a 14 year old woman (yes, woman – in Jewish at 13, you were considered an adult) but to be a guardian?

I personally do not hold that Joseph was previously married. I would think that if that were the case, the author of Matthew would have made it clear he was a widower. I do suspect he was older than Mary, but probably not more than the usual five or so years.
 
According to Richard Bauckham, the “Epiphanian view” had been generally accepted as far back as it has ever been possible to trace these things. It was the prevailing belief until Jerome and Helvidius, both living in Rome at the time of the Damasus I pontificate, both came up, more or less simultaneously, with their alternative proposals. There is no reason to suppose that the author of the Protoevangelium of James invented the “Epiphanan view” ex nihilo. He was probably just describing Jesus’ family background as it was generally understood among the Christian community at the time.
 
First off, quit reading Jerome outside context.

Jerome spent a great deal of his life defending the goodness and rightness of marriage, and marital sex, from the anti-sex Manichaeans and other anti-sex Gnostic groups. The same was true of most Christian writers and Fathers of the time, including St. Augustine and others.

If Mary had been doing it with Joseph to the tune of several other kids, I GUARANTEE that it would have been brought up as an argument against the Manichaeans. (Monks who never even touched a woman were defending sex, and monks who never ate anything but bread and water were defending meat and beans and wine. It was a far-ranging bunch of arguments.)

Meanwhile, I don’t recall that even any of the pro-sex Manichaean and Gnostic groups (ie, do every kind of physical act you can, the nastier the better, in order to achieve liberation from the imprisoning flesh) were recorded as saying that Mary had been doing it with Joseph.

So the perpetual virginity of Mary was something believed by pretty much everyone, including crazy people who believed that the Sacrament of Communion should be made out of body fluids. (And I don’t mean blood or spit.)
 
Last edited:
Mintaka said:
First off, quit reading Jerome outside context.

Jerome spent a great deal of his life defending the goodness and rightness of marriage, and marital sex, from the anti-sex Manichaeans and other anti-sex Gnostic groups. The same was true of most Christian writers and Fathers of the time, including St. Augustine and others.

If Mary had been doing it with Joseph to the tune of several other kids, I GUARANTEE that it would have been brought up as an argument against the Manichaeans. …
Click to expand...
Are you addressng this comment to me? Why?
 
Mintaka said:
from the anti-sex Manichaeans and other anti-sex Gnostic groups. The same was true of most Christian writers and Fathers of the time, including St. Augustine and others.

If Mary had been doing it with Joseph to the tune of several other kids, I GUARANTEE that it would have been brought up as an argument against the manichaeans
Click to expand...
And did these anti sex gnostics/manichaeans bring up the ever virgin Mary as a defense?

And was not Tertullian, an obstaining monk, write that Mary had other children ?
 
Last edited:
Mintaka said:
Jerome spent a great deal of his life defending the goodness and rightness of marriage, and marital sex, fr
Click to expand...
Perhaps but virginity and chastity, obstaining was better than “goodness and rightness” of marital sex according to his writings.

Both sides can say their view was first established. We all agree arguments developed later (3 views). It is also valid that theology also developed surrounding marriage and sex that may have fostered or influenced the outcome of the competing views.
 
Last edited:
At one point Jerome said, “I love marriage because it brings forth virgins.” We’re not taking him out of context.
 
Not sure, but what context…like the ends justify the not as spiritual means ? Still a preoccupation of virginity (obstaining) as the ultimate state for all spiritual, holy people.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top