A Question for Catholics

[Adventist Heretic]

It's very simple, "brother" has more than one meaning and you yet choose the meaning to back up your conjecture

Your reasoning backwards. You're trying to support your doctrine from the text rather than looking at the text to support your doctrine. There are cases where the text means biological relative and there are other cases where it doesn't mean that. You have rolled out the fact that it means biological relative by reason of the fact that you don't want it to be the case because of contradicts the Catholic Church teaches. Looks like SDA is with the the investigative judgment. You wanted to say something that isn't there. Sorry.

. Calling it the "plain reading" does not change that fact that there are multiple meanings! You call it "plain" because that is your pre-conceived notion of the meaning you want it to be.

That is no proof at all. As to "until," the Koine Greek word for "until" says ZERO about what happened after the subject event.

The subject of the event is them having sex they did not have sex until after Jesus was born. And plainly says that. You have to do a bunch of mental gymnastics to come to the conclusion that you do. You just don't want it to say that.

"Michal had no child until the day of her death" does NOT mean Michal had children after her death. It's the same grammatical structure yet you interpret it differently to suit your belief. You have no support whatsoever from the Bible for your speculation.

But saying they didn't have sex until after the baby was born, does mean there was sex after the baby was born, but not before.

 

[jas3]

B.ἀδελφός having the potential for a broader meaning is acknowledged. But multiple gospels chose not to use a more precise term that would have clarified the point.

The contention that it cannot be actually brothers and sisters appears to rest on second century sources.

It was not unclear to contemporary readers. The first attestation of your interpretation is from the 4th/5th century.

 

[Valletta]

Your reasoning backwards. You're trying to support your doctrine from the text rather than looking at the text to support your doctrine. There are cases where the text means biological relative and there are other cases where it doesn't mean that. You have rolled out the fact that it means biological relative by reason of the fact that you don't want it to be the case because of contradicts the Catholic Church teaches. Looks like SDA is with the the investigative judgment. You wanted to say something that isn't there. Sorry.





The subject of the event is them having sex they did not have sex until after Jesus was born. And plainly says that. You have to do a bunch of mental gymnastics to come to the conclusion that you do. You just don't want it to say that.

But saying they didn't have sex until after the baby was born, does mean there was sex after the baby was born, but not before.

I did not know the SDA has taken a formal position about the word Koine Greek word for "until," contrary to so many Greek scholars. Are you sure SDA has come to an investigative judgment about "until?" As scholars state, ZERO is said about what happens after the "until" event. Yet you claim I "say something that isn't there" when in fact it is you who do so! Incredible.

 

[tall73]

tall73 said:​

A. I was speaking to the contention that in Aramaic there is no word for cousin.​

​

B.ἀδελφός having the potential for a broader meaning is acknowledged. But multiple gospels chose not to use a more precise term that would have clarified the point.​

​

The contention that it cannot be actually brothers and sisters appears to rest on second century sources.​

It was not unclear to contemporary readers.

I have not seen any source contemporary to the gospel writers on either side.

But my point was that the gospels do not make it plain that they were not actual brothers or sisters in this case. The range of meaning means it could be either. But you are arguing for something more than just either, and you are doing so on the basis on non-contemporary sources.

Moreover, it cannot be too clear from the gospels, because even among ancient churches there are different theories still, as to whether they were cousins, sons of Joseph from a prior marriage, etc.

The first attestation of your interpretation is from the 4th/5th century.

I don't think the Scriptures state enough to go on, and I don't see why I need to be dogmatic about later sources which seem to still not be clear as to the particulars.

 

[Adventist Heretic]

I did not know the SDA has taken a formal position about the word Koine Greek word for "until," contrary to so many Greek scholars. Are you sure SDA has come to an investigative judgment about "until?" As scholars state, ZERO is said about what happens after the "until" event. Yet you claim I "say something that isn't there" when in fact it is you who do so! Incredible.

New American Standard Bible
but kept her a virgin until (up to the point) she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.

In other words, she was not a virgin after She gave birth, because then Joseph had sex with her.

 

[tall73]

Are you sure SDA has come to an investigative judgment about "until?"

You misunderstood the reference. Adventist Heretic disagrees with a key SDA doctrine, the "investigative judgment" doctrine. He does not think it is supported by the evidence of Scripture.

In the same way, he doesn't think your position is supported by the evidence of Scripture.

As to the topic, this article by the Adventist Biblical Research institute notes that the issue is somewhat up in the air. But the author did indicate the view that was perhaps most likely was that they were step brothers from an earlier marriage, and lists the evidence as to why.

https://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/materials/jesus-family-ties/

Of course, he may just be defending Ellen White. Since Adventists will usually not disagree with her stated position:

The Desire of Ages, by Ellen G. White. Chapter 9: Days of Conflict

Under the synagogue teachers the youth were instructed in the countless regulations which as orthodox Israelites they were expected to observe. But Jesus did not interest Himself in these matters. . . . The Scriptures of the Old Testament were His constant study, and the words, 'Thus saith the...

www.ellenwhite.info

​

His brothers, as the sons of Joseph were called, sided with the rabbis.​

​

And a bit later

All this displeased His brothers. Being older than Jesus, they felt that He should be under their dictation. They charged Him with thinking Himself superior to them, and reproved Him for setting Himself above their teachers and the priests and rulers of the people.​

​

 

[jas3]

I have not seen any source contemporary to the gospel writers on either side.

But my point was that the gospels do not make it plain that they were not actual brothers or sisters in this case. The range of meaning means it could be either. But you are arguing for something more than just either, and you are doing so on the basis on non-contemporary sources.

This is like an atheist arguing that Christians have the burden of proof for their claim that God exists since they affirm it. The proposition that Jesus may have had siblings, in contradiction to the traditional Christian teaching on the subject, requires evidence itself.

When talking about antiquity, a document written within living memory of the period in question (in this case the Apostolic Age) is contemporary. But even if you don't want to use that word, it's extremely early evidence, and the fact that its teaching is consistently upheld by the early Christians, opposed only by the heretic Helvidius centuries later, indicates that it's an authentic Christian belief.

Moreover, it cannot be too clear from the gospels, because even among ancient churches there are different theories still, as to whether they were cousins, sons of Joseph from a prior marriage, etc.

All of those options interpret ἀδελφός in the same sense, though. That's just further evidence of a unanimous understanding of the proper sense of the word.

 

[tall73]

This is like an atheist arguing that Christians have the burden of proof for their claim that God exists since they affirm it.

In a sense, perhaps. Though I am not arguing against the position. I am not arguing for any of the positions, either way. Those who do, have the burden to support their position.

I suppose you could say I am agnostic on whether Mary was a virgin after the birth of Jesus. I don't see it as critical either way.

I would say there is far more evidence of God's existence than there is of Mary's sex life subsequent to the birth of Jesus, however, whichever view you take.

The proposition that Jesus may have had siblings, in contradiction to the traditional Christian teaching on the subject, requires evidence itself.

The evidence is in the gospels, which is why those upholding the view of perpetual virginity felt the need to address those texts.

When talking about antiquity, a document written within living memory of the period in question (in this case the Apostolic Age) is contemporary. But even if you don't want to use that word, it's extremely early evidence, and the fact that its teaching is consistently upheld by the early Christians, opposed only by the heretic Helvidius centuries later, indicates that it's an authentic Christian belief.

I certainly grant that it is referenced rather early, though not contemporaneous with the gospel writers in extant sources. The wide geographic distribution of the view (Clement in Alexandria, Justin in Rome, etc.) suggests it goes back further, and could be from the same age, but we just don't have sources from that time.

I also think the evidence of Jesus' brother's trying to take charge of Him along with Mary suggests the possibility they were older.

I tend to think the notion of two sisters named Mary is a bit odd, in regards to that particular explanation, but some more modern takes on that make it a sister in law of Joseph, etc.

I also do not think it was just one person who questioned the perpetual virginity of Mary. And there are nuances to that as well, from thinking that Mary had sex with Joseph later, to the view that she did not have sex with Joseph later but was not a virgin by virtue of giving birth, etc.

Epiphanius is reported to address a group who think Mary had sex with Joseph later, but still thought that the brothers were older sons of Joseph.

All of those options interpret ἀδελφός in the same sense, though. That's just further evidence of a unanimous understanding of the proper sense of the word.

Of course, all those who agree that Mary was a perpetual virgin understand the word in a way to allow for that. Why would they not?

And they often have to argue against the other meaning--which they wouldn't have to do if the more common meaning of actual brother by blood were not already understood to be the primary usage.

 

[Valletta]

You misunderstood the reference. Adventist Heretic disagrees with a key SDA doctrine, the "investigative judgment" doctrine. He does not think it is supported by the evidence of Scripture.

In the same way, he doesn't think your position is supported by the evidence of Scripture.

As to the topic, this article by the Adventist Biblical Research institute notes that the issue is somewhat up in the air. But the author did indicate the view that was perhaps most likely was that they were step brothers from an earlier marriage, and lists the evidence as to why.

https://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/materials/jesus-family-ties/

Of course, he may just be defending Ellen White. Since Adventists will usually not disagree with her stated position:

The Desire of Ages, by Ellen G. White. Chapter 9: Days of Conflict

Under the synagogue teachers the youth were instructed in the countless regulations which as orthodox Israelites they were expected to observe. But Jesus did not interest Himself in these matters. . . . The Scriptures of the Old Testament were His constant study, and the words, 'Thus saith the...

www.ellenwhite.info

​

His brothers, as the sons of Joseph were called, sided with the rabbis.​

​

And a bit later

All this displeased His brothers. Being older than Jesus, they felt that He should be under their dictation. They charged Him with thinking Himself superior to them, and reproved Him for setting Himself above their teachers and the priests and rulers of the people.​

​

He brought up SDA but did not explain anything about an investigate judgment doctrine. Now we know SDA is "up in the air." I know of not one Greek linguist that supports his claim about "until." My position that the Koine Greek word "until" in Scripture says nothing about what happens after the subject event is a grammatical position about particular Scripture,. rather than a "Scriptural position."

 

[tall73]

He brought up SDA but did not explain anything about an investigate judgment doctrine.

He may have thought many here were familiar with it, since it has been raised a number of times in this particular section.

Now we know SDA is "up in the air."

Well, that article said the matter was not definitive, but still argued for the position of Ellen White.

And in reality, you will find very few Adventists who disagree with a plain statement of Ellen White.

Though there are some out there, like Adventis Heretic, who reject Ellen White.

 

[tall73]

I know of not one Greek linguist that supports his claim about "until." My position that the Koine Greek word "until" in Scripture says nothing about what happens after the subject event is a grammatical position about particular Scripture,. rather than a "Scriptural position."

The word "until" is not decisive. I think all you can definitively say is that Matthew indicated they did not have sex until the time when she gave birth, emphasizing her virginity to that point, and therefore the miraculous nature of the birth.

Mat 1:25 but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.​

​

However, if it was Matthew's goal to advocate for perpetual virginity, this really does not seem like the way to express that. The more natural way to read it in this case is that he abstained from knowing her until after the birth, with the implication that he did then know her.

And the word is often used, including in Matthew, to describe one set of circumstances prevailing up to the specified point, then a different set of circumstances prevailing.

Matthew 2:9 9 When they heard the king, they departed; and behold, the star which they had seen in the East went before them, till it came and stood over where the young Child was. (NKJV)​

The star went before them until it stood over where Jesus was. The star was no longer going before them after that point.

Matthew 2:13 13 Now when they had departed, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream, saying, “Arise, take the young Child and His mother, flee to Egypt, and stay there until I bring you word; for Herod will seek the young Child to destroy Him.” (NKJV)​

​

They stayed in Egypt until the death of Herod, then they no longer stayed in Egypt.

Etc.

So again, I don't find any spelled out evidence in the gospels of Mary's perpetual virginity, and some statements that may suggest otherwise, but don't necessarily have to.

 

[jas3]

In a sense, perhaps. Though I am not arguing against the position. I am not arguing for any of the positions, either way. Those who do, have the burden to support their position.

You're arguing that either position is plausible, which is itself an argument that needs substantiation.

The evidence is in the gospels, which is why those upholding the view of perpetual virginity felt the need to address those texts.

The meaning of the gospels on this subject is what's in question. They certainly don't say that either view is acceptable, they just assume that the audience understands the proper sense of the words.

I certainly grant that it is referenced rather early, though not contemporaneous with the gospel writers in extant sources. The wide geographic distribution of the view (Clement in Alexandria, Justin in Rome, etc.) suggests it goes back further, and could be from the same age, but we just don't have sources from that time.

I also think the evidence of Jesus' brother's trying to take charge of Him along with Mary suggests the possibility they were older.

I tend to think the notion of two sisters names Mary is a bit odd, but some more modern takes on that make it a sister in law of Joseph, etc.

I appreciate your fair treatment of these points.

I also do not think it was just one person who questioned the perpetual virginity of Mary.

Theological opinions are very rarely held by literally one person, but as far as people we can name, he's the only one. I'm not familiar with the group St. Epiphanius addressed, but the sects against which he wrote would generally not be considered Christian today.

Of course, all those who agree that Mary was a perpetual virgin understand the word in a way to allow for that. Why would they not?

I'm saying there's no competing tradition that says she wasn't; the only Christian tradition one can point to interprets the word in a consistent way.

And they often have to argue against the other meaning--which they wouldn't have to do if the more common meaning of actual brother by blood were not already understood to be the primary usage.

Aside from St. Jerome's one work on the subject and maybe St. Epiphanius, I'm not aware of anyone having to argue against this position prior to the rise of Protestantism, and even then only in a minority that was condemned by the early Reformers. Even later, John Wesley enumerated Mary's perpetual virginity as one of the core parts of the shared faith between Catholics and Protestants. Our modern situation where the default position for most Protestants is one of distrust of traditional Mariology is really very recent on the scale of Church history.

 

[Valletta]

The word "until" is not decisive. I think all you can definitively say is that Matthew indicated they did not have sex until the time when she gave birth, emphasizing her virginity to that point, and therefore the miraculous nature of the birth.

Mat 1:25 but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.​

​

However, if it was Matthew's goal to advocate for perpetual virginity, this really does not seem like the way to express that. The more natural way to read it in this case is that he abstained from knowing her until after the birth, with the implication that he did then know her.

And the word is often used, including in Matthew, to describe one set of circumstances prevailing up to the specified point, then a different set of circumstances prevailing.

Matthew 2:9 9 When they heard the king, they departed; and behold, the star which they had seen in the East went before them, till it came and stood over where the young Child was. (NKJV)​

The star went before them until it stood over where Jesus was. The star was no longer going before them after that point.

Matthew 2:13 13 Now when they had departed, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream, saying, “Arise, take the young Child and His mother, flee to Egypt, and stay there until I bring you word; for Herod will seek the young Child to destroy Him.” (NKJV)​

​

They stayed in Egypt until the death of Herod, then they no longer stayed in Egypt.

Etc.

So again, I don't find any spelled out evidence in the gospels of Mary's perpetual virginity, and some statements that may suggest otherwise, but don't necessarily have to.

That was what I explained to "Adventist Heretic" when he made the claim. In no way does the "until" in the sentence say anything about what happened after a subject event. Matthew did not need to "advocate" that Mary had no other children, he and the other Apostles and others close to Jesus were well aware of the truth.

 

[tall73]

You're arguing that either position is plausible, which is itself an argument that needs substantiation.

I am arguing that the NT does not have enough information to say definitively, because I agree the two key terms can be used in a variety of ways--though the ways you are arguing forare the exceptions, not the rule.

I am also noting that it is really only the later tradition that would make the view of perpetual virginity "plausible", because that is where it is spelled out, and by a number of promoters.

But even then they have to address the texts in the gospels that might call it into question for some.

The meaning of the gospels on this subject is what's in question.

Yes, I agree. And it is primarily on the basis of later tradition. But that later tradition does not agree in the particulars of the actual history. They only agree on the end-point, and have different ways of getting there.

If two father promote two views, one of children from a prior marriage, and another that of cousins, that is not a unified history that all have passed down, straight from the apostles.

Those are two different explanations of how the currently predominant view--perpetual virginity--can be found to match up with the NT text. And even some modern protestant groups who hold to perpetual virginity do not settle on one or the other necessarily, but say both are--plausible. Because the NT is not definitive, and the tradition passed down by fathers is varied.

They certainly don't say that either view is acceptable, they just assume that the audience understands the proper sense of the words.

Note, I am certainly not arguing that the gospel writers were inspired to make statements that either view is acceptable, as though there could be two truths simultaneously There is a truth behind it. I just don't know what it is. I see inspiration as communicating a true reality.

But in the NT I don't think they addressed the question of perpetual virginity, which is why later commentators are trying to understand what they might say on that point, based on what they did say on other points more crucial to their argument at the time.

In Matthew's account the point is clearly that Jesus was born of a virgin--it was miraculous. It was not a normal birth. It was of God.

If the point was to assert perpetual virginity of Mary, I am sure it could have been spelled out beyond any doubt. I think we are asking a question regarding the text of the NT that it was not meant to answer. And we are asking it because of later views. Those later views may have stemmed from other knowledge, present in apostolic times. Or it may not have. I don't really know.

I appreciate your fair treatment of these points.

Yes, it is a fair argument that early sources, spread out across a large area, suggest a tradition going back earlier than those sources. I have no axe to grind on the point, because I am open to any of the views.

Theological opinions are very rarely held by literally one person, but as far as people we can name, he's the only one. I'm not familiar with the group St. Epiphanius addressed, but the sects against which he wrote would generally not be considered Christian today.

Agreed, but he notes in that very section that some do not have heresies regarding the nature of Christ, the Spirit. etc. but do teach grave error in regards to Mary. So he still considers it heresy, and that they are very misguided, and prey to one of the various winds of doctrine plaguing their generation, but not all those he wrote to were on the same order of those who rejected the Trinity, etc.

But he also notes they trace their view back to an earlier figure (who was more definitively condemned, but for a different reason). And Epiphanius himself is not sure whether it is really true that they trace it back to an earlier time, or whether it just an innovation, and they claim to trace it back from that figure.

I'm saying there's no competing tradition that says she wasn't; the only Christian tradition one can point to interprets the word in a consistent way.

Epiphanius claimed to be addressing those who had an orthodox view of the Trinity, but very flawed Mariology. Obviously, the view of Mary's perpetual virginity was predominant by that point, and any works of critics would have been unlikely to be preserved. But we still see echoes of them in the works themselves, criticizing those views. You, of course, would consider them non-Christian. But the issue came up multiple times in that century because it was not fully settled, however you see that coming about.

Aside from St. Jerome's one work on the subject and maybe St. Epiphanius, I'm not aware of anyone having to argue against this position prior to the rise of Protestantism

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Bonosus

Bishop of Sardica, a heretic in the latter part of the fourth century

www.newadvent.org

For instance, Bonosus, a bishop, was brought before a regional council, which deferred on the question to other leaders, and eventually the pope.

 

[Adventist Heretic]

He brought up SDA but did not explain anything about an investigate judgment doctrine. Now we know SDA is "up in the air." I know of not one Greek linguist that supports his claim about "until." My position that the Koine Greek word "until" in Scripture says nothing about what happens after the subject event is a grammatical position about particular Scripture,. rather than a "Scriptural position."

the problem is the grammar as you have made it makes not sense. When the subject is Mary's Virginity and how long it lasted , until would mean up until a paticular point. That point would be child birth. This is a cause and effect statement. She is no longer a Virgin after Birth. That is the natural order of things, no one would naturally assume other wise. the issue in this case is how long did Joseph wait to have sex with may, until the baby was born then the natural order took place

Now compare that with the reference to Michal not having an 2 Samuel 6:23 is translated (until, til, onto) "Michal . . . had no child until the date of her death" means Michal had no children up to that point in time. It also says nothing about what happened after that time. Using your logic, Michal had a child after she was dead.

In this case the issues is how long was was Michal childless all her life, until death. The natural order would not allow her to have a child because dead people can't have children.
There is an assumption by the author in both cases that the reader is intelligent enough to know what the natural order of this is and the natural consquence. in the Case of Michal a reasonable person would understand that at death people can't have children, so ended the curse with her life.

 

[Adventist Heretic]

I am arguing that the NT does not have enough information to say definitively, because I agree the two key terms can be used in a variety of ways--though the ways you are arguing forare the exceptions, not the rule.

I am also noting that it is really only the later tradition that would make the view of perpetual virginity "plausible", because that is where it is spelled out, and by a number of promoters.

But even then they have to address the texts in the gospels that might call it into question for some.



Yes, I agree. And it is primarily on the basis of later tradition. But that later tradition does not agree in the particulars of the actual history. They only agree on the end-point, and have different ways of getting there.

If two father promote two views, one of children from a prior marriage, and another that of cousins, that is not a unified history that all have passed down, straight from the apostles.

Those are two different explanations of how the currently predominant view--perpetual virginity--can be found to match up with the NT text. And even some modern protestant groups who hold to perpetual virginity do not settle on one or the other necessarily, but say both are--plausible. Because the NT is not definitive, and the tradition passed down by fathers is varied.


Note, I am certainly not arguing that the gospel writers were inspired to make statements that either view is acceptable, as though there could be two truths simultaneously There is a truth behind it. I just don't know what it is. I see inspiration as communicating a true reality.

But in the NT I don't think they addressed the question of perpetual virginity, which is why later commentators are trying to understand what they might say on that point, based on what they did say on other points more crucial to their argument at the time.

In Matthew's account the point is clearly that Jesus was born of a virgin--it was miraculous. It was not a normal birth. It was of God.

If the point was to assert perpetual virginity of Mary, I am sure it could have been spelled out beyond any doubt. I think we are asking a question regarding the text of the NT that it was not meant to answer. And we are asking it because of later views. Those later views may have stemmed from other knowledge, present in apostolic times. Or it may not have. I don't really know.



Yes, it is a fair argument that early sources, spread out across a large area, suggest a tradition going back earlier than those sources. I have no axe to grind on the point, because I am open to any of the views.



Agreed, but he notes in that very section that some do not have heresies regarding the nature of Christ, the Spirit. etc. but do teach grave error in regards to Mary. So he still considers it heresy, and that they are very misguided, and prey to one of the various winds of doctrine plaguing their generation, but not all those he wrote to were on the same order of those who rejected the Trinity, etc.

But he also notes they trace their view back to an earlier figure (who was more definitively condemned, but for a different reason). And Epiphanius himself is not sure whether it is really true that they trace it back to an earlier time, or whether it just an innovation, and they claim to trace it back from that figure.




Epiphanius claimed to be addressing those who had an orthodox view of the Trinity, but very flawed Mariology. Obviously, the view of Mary's perpetual virginity was predominant by that point, and any works of critics would have been unlikely to be preserved. But we still see echoes of them in the works themselves, criticizing those views. You, of course, would consider them non-Christian. But the issue came up multiple times in that century because it was not fully settled, however you see that coming about.

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Bonosus

Bishop of Sardica, a heretic in the latter part of the fourth century

www.newadvent.org

For instance, Bonosus, a bishop, was brought before a regional council, which deferred on the question to other leaders, and eventually the pope.

there is another element of this that is not being considered. A cultural element. The issue of virginity was a openly questioned by people outside the church. not from the the immoral side, from the moral side. there was kind of a competition on this matter, our virgins are better then your virgins, our religion is religiously & morally superior to your religion. I cannot help but think that this issue developed as a result of this issue.

 

[tall73]

Matthew did not need to "advocate" that Mary had no other children, he and the other Apostles and others close to Jesus were well aware of the truth.

They aware of the truth regarding Mary having other children, no doubt. But the gospels they wrote don't seem to have had a burden to discuss the point so as for us to know it as certainly.

And of course, what they do pass on they have a purpose for, which was something else. So for instance, a reference to the first born Son had implications for the necessity of redeeming the firstborn, dedicating the child, which was, within the narrative, the occasion of prophetic utterance, and showed Jesus' being born under the law, and His family living in accordance with it. He was circumcised according to the law. This would have been important to the audience receiving the book, as Matthew seems to be writing especially to a Jewish audience, tracing the geneology back to Abraham, etc. And Jerome adds that his gospel was initially written in Hebrew (which might also have a bearing on the terms used).

I now speak of the New Testament, which is undoubtedly Greek, except the Apostle Matthew, who had first set forth the Gospel of Christ in Hebrew letters in Judea.​

Letter from Jerome to Pope Damasus.​

Additionally Epiphanius affirms a Hebrew version of Matthew's gospel. Speaking of the Nazarenes:

They have the Gospel according to Matthew in its entirety in Hebrew. For it is clear that they still preserve this, in the Hebrew alphabet, as it was originally written.​

Epiphanius of Salamis, Panarion 29.9.4​

​

And of course, there are varying opinions on the statements by Epiphanius and Jerome on Matthew's gospel.

In any case, while the apostles knew the truth regarding Jesus brothers and sisters, they were not trying to spell out some of the things we might like to know on that point.

 

[tall73]

there was kind of a competition on this matter, our virgins are better then your virgins, our religion is religiously & morally superior to your religion. I cannot help but think that this issue developed as a result of this issue.

Yes, those looking at it from a critical view note the rise of monastic life as related, and emphasis on virginity. Of course, Matthew 19 and I Corinthians 7 spell out a vocation other than marriage. But later centuries saw more emphasis on this, it seems.

The arguments on the part of the church fathers, however, seem to center more around the notion of it being improper for anything to encroach upon the womb that God's Son inhabited. Essentially, that her womb was sacred, dedicated for that holy use, and now set apart from other use.

 

[Valletta]

They aware of the truth regarding Mary having other children, no doubt.

That Mary had no other children. Not once in the Bible do any of the pretend brethren or sisters refer to Mary as their mother, nor does anyone else in the entire Bible say that Mary is the mother of one of them.