Common Misunderstanding: That Catholics blatantly deny biblical truth in asserting the perpetual virginity of Mary since the Sacred Scriptures frequently refer to Jesus' "brothers" (e.g. Mt 13:55; Mk 3:31-35; Lk 8:20; Jn 2:12,7:3-5; Acts 1:14; Gal 1:19; 1 Cor 9:5.)
Response: This is one of the clearest examples where a Catholic doctrine has been based on very accurate records maintained through the Apostolic and Patristic Traditions of the Church. It is validated when one does careful, in-depth Bible study, especially of the word used for "brothers," adelphos, in Greek. Both the word study, collaborating data from the scriptural record, as well as the witness of Tradition make an overwhelming case for the Catholic position.
Sources: Keating, Fundamentalism & Catholicism; Catholics United for the Faith, Mary's Perpetual Virginity; Scott Hahn's talk on "The Holy Mother"; Sheed & Ward, Catholic Evidence: Training Outlines; Rumble & Carty, Radio Replies; Newman, The Second Eve; Gibbons, The Faith of Our Fathers; St. Jerome, "On the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Mary: Against Helvidius" and the Catechism of the Catholic Church 496-511, esp 498.
The Biblical Foundation:
There is little debate concerning the virginity of Mary until after Jesus’ birth. The Annunciation, Mt. 1:23, Lk 1:27 (Mary is a virgin) and 34 (She has no husband). Both the Apostle’s Creed and the Nicene Creed recognize this.
Mary’s virginity after the birth of Jesus appears to be more difficult to defend because there is no explicit statement of this doctrine in Sacred Scripture. It is important to recognize that there is a great deal of collaborating data from Scripture to support this doctrine and absolutely nothing in Scripture to contradict it. There is immense documentation from the early Fathers of the Church defending Mary’s perpetual virginity. Let us begin with the biblical witness.
The most glaring objection to Mary’s perpetual virginity is the multiple scriptural references to Jesus’ brothers. This is an issue that would be easily understood if we were ancient Christians who spoke Greek, the original language of the scriptural text. The Greek word which is rendered “brother” in English (aldelphos) does not mean the same thing in English as in ecclesiastical Greek. In the Greek of the Church, it can be used to indicate not only a blood brother, but also to denote cousins and other relatives, even to the point of describing members of one’s own tribe.
There is no Hebrew term for cousins or other close relatives. The word used here is clearly used in the Old Testament to identify those who were not literally “brothers.” The reference to the “brethren of the Lord” in Mt 13:55 was understood to be cousins. For example, James was called the brother of Jesus, yet he is said to be the Son of Alphaeus and Mary was never described as the wife of Alphaeus. 3. This James was the blood brother of Jude. Jude’s epistle begins with, “Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and the brother of James.” 4. None of these persons are described as “sons of Mary” (See St. Joseph’s Edition footnote for Mk 6:3). 5. At the cross, Mary of Cleophas is called the mother of James and Joseph (Mk 15:40). 6 Jesus commits Mary’s care to John (Jn. 19:26, 27), one of the “sons of Zebedee.” If he had had other brothers, this action would have disgraced them.
Further uses of the same word in the Old Testament illustrate our point farther. Lot is described as Abraham’s “brother” (Gen. 14:14), but was his nephew. Jacob is called the “brother” of his uncle Laban (Gen. 29:15). Cis and Eleazar are described as the “sons” of Moholi. Eleazar’s daughters were described as marrying their “brethren”, the sons of Cis. These were really their cousins (1 Chron 23:21-22). Sometimes this term, “adelphoi”, meant only kinsmen (Dt.23:7, Esd. 5-7, Jer. 34:9, 2 Kings 10:13,14). This word could even identify people apparently unrelated, such as a friend (2 Sam 1:26, 1 Kg 9:13, 20:32), or just an ally (Amos 1:9; see Keating p 282). When the writers of the New Testament wrote in Greek, they adopted the same word usage as the translators of the Septuagint. In this, the translators adopted the Hebrew use of the word, not the more precise Greek usage (Keating, p 282ff).
Further examination of the biblical texts demonstrate that some of these “brothers” were not the children of Mary. Nor does Scripture ever identify Mary as the earthly mother of anyone other than Jesus.
Some argue that the reference to Jesus as being a “firstborn” son implies that Mary had more children. St. Jerome (who certainly understood Greek and Latin language usage) argues that in that culture every only child is a firstborn child. The Jewish people offered sacrifice upon the birth of a “firstborn” without any necessity of waiting until another child was born (CUF, p 4).
Some also argue that Mt. 1:18,25 implies that Joseph and Mary had relations after the birth of Jesus. These passages only claim that up to the birth of Jesus the marriage was not consummated. They do not claim that it was consummated at some point after Jesus’ birth. St. Jerome cites many scriptural passages to support this including Is 46:4, Mt 28:20, 1 Cor. 15:23-26, Ps 118:123, Gen 35:4, Deut. 34:5-6, Gen 8:7, 2 Sam. 6:23 (CUF, p 5).
The context of Scripture also raises very difficult problems if we assume that Mary had children other than Jesus (see Keating, p 283ff).
Tradition:
Mary’s perpetual virginity is repeatedly taught by the Latin, Greek, and Syriac Fathers. Especially noteworthy is St. Jerome’s “On the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Mary: Against Helvidius”(383). This document addresses the question typically raised against this doctrine by Protestants today. Pope St. Siricius (circa 390) approved the refutation of a certain Bonosus who had asserted that Mary had other children. St. Ambrose’s teaching on Mary’s virginity after the birth of Jesus was adopted by the Synod of Milan (390). When Jerome wrote this treatise, he cited many Christian writers such as Ignatius, Polycarp, Iranaeus and Justin Martyr.
The Canon of the Mass speaks of her as the “glorious ever Virgin.” This canon is very probably of apostolic antiquity. All Catholic Tradition concurs in this (Gibbons, p 138).
Keating makes some penetrating observations at the end of his chapter. “Why are fundamentalists, particularly those most opposed to Catholicism, so insistent that Mary was not perpetually a virgin? There seem to be two reasons. One is dislike of celibacy for priests and nuns… By undermining (Mary’s) status, they hope to undermine that of priests and nuns…” The other reason is that, because of Mary’s special status, he is considered worthy of special devotion. Fundamentalists think that nay honor she receives is necessarily taken from Christ. Honor is not a zero sum game. Honor rightly given to any circumstance ordinarily generates an appreciation of the honor due others. Admiration of any creator’s handiwork is also admiration of the creator.
This entire process of reflection demonstrates the validity of the Catholic understanding that Divine Revelation is transmitted both by Scripture and Tradition. It is the early Apostolic Tradition and Patristic studies that give necessary insights into the scriptural foundations for Gospel truth. Without this role for Tradition, each generation of Christians would be more likely to read its philosophical and cultural presuppositions into Scripture in an inaccurate and false manner.
Response: This is one of the clearest examples where a Catholic doctrine has been based on very accurate records maintained through the Apostolic and Patristic Traditions of the Church. It is validated when one does careful, in-depth Bible study, especially of the word used for "brothers," adelphos, in Greek. Both the word study, collaborating data from the scriptural record, as well as the witness of Tradition make an overwhelming case for the Catholic position.
Sources: Keating, Fundamentalism & Catholicism; Catholics United for the Faith, Mary's Perpetual Virginity; Scott Hahn's talk on "The Holy Mother"; Sheed & Ward, Catholic Evidence: Training Outlines; Rumble & Carty, Radio Replies; Newman, The Second Eve; Gibbons, The Faith of Our Fathers; St. Jerome, "On the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Mary: Against Helvidius" and the Catechism of the Catholic Church 496-511, esp 498.
The Biblical Foundation:
There is little debate concerning the virginity of Mary until after Jesus’ birth. The Annunciation, Mt. 1:23, Lk 1:27 (Mary is a virgin) and 34 (She has no husband). Both the Apostle’s Creed and the Nicene Creed recognize this.
Mary’s virginity after the birth of Jesus appears to be more difficult to defend because there is no explicit statement of this doctrine in Sacred Scripture. It is important to recognize that there is a great deal of collaborating data from Scripture to support this doctrine and absolutely nothing in Scripture to contradict it. There is immense documentation from the early Fathers of the Church defending Mary’s perpetual virginity. Let us begin with the biblical witness.
The most glaring objection to Mary’s perpetual virginity is the multiple scriptural references to Jesus’ brothers. This is an issue that would be easily understood if we were ancient Christians who spoke Greek, the original language of the scriptural text. The Greek word which is rendered “brother” in English (aldelphos) does not mean the same thing in English as in ecclesiastical Greek. In the Greek of the Church, it can be used to indicate not only a blood brother, but also to denote cousins and other relatives, even to the point of describing members of one’s own tribe.
There is no Hebrew term for cousins or other close relatives. The word used here is clearly used in the Old Testament to identify those who were not literally “brothers.” The reference to the “brethren of the Lord” in Mt 13:55 was understood to be cousins. For example, James was called the brother of Jesus, yet he is said to be the Son of Alphaeus and Mary was never described as the wife of Alphaeus. 3. This James was the blood brother of Jude. Jude’s epistle begins with, “Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and the brother of James.” 4. None of these persons are described as “sons of Mary” (See St. Joseph’s Edition footnote for Mk 6:3). 5. At the cross, Mary of Cleophas is called the mother of James and Joseph (Mk 15:40). 6 Jesus commits Mary’s care to John (Jn. 19:26, 27), one of the “sons of Zebedee.” If he had had other brothers, this action would have disgraced them.
Further uses of the same word in the Old Testament illustrate our point farther. Lot is described as Abraham’s “brother” (Gen. 14:14), but was his nephew. Jacob is called the “brother” of his uncle Laban (Gen. 29:15). Cis and Eleazar are described as the “sons” of Moholi. Eleazar’s daughters were described as marrying their “brethren”, the sons of Cis. These were really their cousins (1 Chron 23:21-22). Sometimes this term, “adelphoi”, meant only kinsmen (Dt.23:7, Esd. 5-7, Jer. 34:9, 2 Kings 10:13,14). This word could even identify people apparently unrelated, such as a friend (2 Sam 1:26, 1 Kg 9:13, 20:32), or just an ally (Amos 1:9; see Keating p 282). When the writers of the New Testament wrote in Greek, they adopted the same word usage as the translators of the Septuagint. In this, the translators adopted the Hebrew use of the word, not the more precise Greek usage (Keating, p 282ff).
Further examination of the biblical texts demonstrate that some of these “brothers” were not the children of Mary. Nor does Scripture ever identify Mary as the earthly mother of anyone other than Jesus.
Some argue that the reference to Jesus as being a “firstborn” son implies that Mary had more children. St. Jerome (who certainly understood Greek and Latin language usage) argues that in that culture every only child is a firstborn child. The Jewish people offered sacrifice upon the birth of a “firstborn” without any necessity of waiting until another child was born (CUF, p 4).
Some also argue that Mt. 1:18,25 implies that Joseph and Mary had relations after the birth of Jesus. These passages only claim that up to the birth of Jesus the marriage was not consummated. They do not claim that it was consummated at some point after Jesus’ birth. St. Jerome cites many scriptural passages to support this including Is 46:4, Mt 28:20, 1 Cor. 15:23-26, Ps 118:123, Gen 35:4, Deut. 34:5-6, Gen 8:7, 2 Sam. 6:23 (CUF, p 5).
The context of Scripture also raises very difficult problems if we assume that Mary had children other than Jesus (see Keating, p 283ff).
- From the earliest interpretations of the Bible we see that this language usage indicates that she had made a vow of lifelong virginity. If she had not taken a vow the question from the angel Gabriel would not have made sense.
- In the story of Jesus in the Temple (Lk. 2:41-51), there is no reference at all to other children in the family. Jesus is known not as a “son of Mary” but “the son of Mary” (Mk 6:3). The Greek expression implies that he is her only son. In the scriptural text, the brothers and sisters of Jesus are never referred to as Mary’s children.
- In the Semitic culture, older sons gave advice to younger, but the younger never give advice to the older for it was considered disrespectful to do so. When we find Jesus’ “brethren” giving him advice (Jn. 7:3-4 and Mk 3:21), it would imply that they were older. This strengthens the understanding of adelphos in the sense of “cousins’ or other close relatives.
- From the Cross Jesus commended his Mother’s care to the apostle John (Jn 19:26-27). It would have been scandalous for Jesus to have done this if he had other brothers.
- Some fundamentalists insist that “and he knew her not until she had brought forth a first-born son” (Mt 1:25) must mean that Mary subsequently had other children. But this is to impose a modern use of the word upon a biblical text. In the Bible, “until means only that some action did not happen up to a certain point; it does not imply that the action did happen later. This is the modern sense of the term. In fact, if the modern sense is forced on the Bible, some ridiculous meanings result (see 2 Sam 6:23; Gen 8:7, Dt 34:6, 1 Macc 5:54 – Keating, p 285).
Tradition:
Mary’s perpetual virginity is repeatedly taught by the Latin, Greek, and Syriac Fathers. Especially noteworthy is St. Jerome’s “On the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Mary: Against Helvidius”(383). This document addresses the question typically raised against this doctrine by Protestants today. Pope St. Siricius (circa 390) approved the refutation of a certain Bonosus who had asserted that Mary had other children. St. Ambrose’s teaching on Mary’s virginity after the birth of Jesus was adopted by the Synod of Milan (390). When Jerome wrote this treatise, he cited many Christian writers such as Ignatius, Polycarp, Iranaeus and Justin Martyr.
The Canon of the Mass speaks of her as the “glorious ever Virgin.” This canon is very probably of apostolic antiquity. All Catholic Tradition concurs in this (Gibbons, p 138).
Keating makes some penetrating observations at the end of his chapter. “Why are fundamentalists, particularly those most opposed to Catholicism, so insistent that Mary was not perpetually a virgin? There seem to be two reasons. One is dislike of celibacy for priests and nuns… By undermining (Mary’s) status, they hope to undermine that of priests and nuns…” The other reason is that, because of Mary’s special status, he is considered worthy of special devotion. Fundamentalists think that nay honor she receives is necessarily taken from Christ. Honor is not a zero sum game. Honor rightly given to any circumstance ordinarily generates an appreciation of the honor due others. Admiration of any creator’s handiwork is also admiration of the creator.
This entire process of reflection demonstrates the validity of the Catholic understanding that Divine Revelation is transmitted both by Scripture and Tradition. It is the early Apostolic Tradition and Patristic studies that give necessary insights into the scriptural foundations for Gospel truth. Without this role for Tradition, each generation of Christians would be more likely to read its philosophical and cultural presuppositions into Scripture in an inaccurate and false manner.