Response to Jerome's Response to Helvidius - Part 19

Jerome wrote a response to Helvidius regarding the virginity of Mary.  This post is the nineteenth in a series of responses to what Jerome wrote.

Jerome wrote:

Now that I have cleared the rocks and shoals I must spread sail and make all speed to reach his epilogue. Feeling himself to be a smatterer, he there produces Tertullian as a witness and quotes the words of Victorinus bishop of Petavium. Of Tertullian I say no more than that he did not belong to the Church. But as regards Victorinus, I assert what has already been proved from the Gospel—that he spoke of the brethren of the Lord not as being sons of Mary, but brethren in the sense I have explained, that is to say, brethren in point of kinship not by nature. We are, however, spending our strength on trifles, and, leaving the fountain of truth, are following the tiny streams of opinion. Might I not array against you the whole series of ancient writers? Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenæus, Justin Martyr, and many other apostolic and eloquent men, who against Ebion, Theodotus of Byzantium, and Valentinus, held these same views, and wrote volumes replete with wisdom. If you had ever read what they wrote, you would be a wiser man. But I think it better to reply briefly to each point than to linger any longer and extend my book to an undue length.  

Witnesses on Helvidius' side

Tertullian:  It seems clear, and Jerome does not deny, that Tertullian also favored the idea that Jesus brothers were his brothers.

Victorinus of Petavium:  

Jerome argues that Petavium is just speaking in the same sense as Scripture.  Unfortunately, while it is believed that Victorinus of Petavium composed a Commentary on Matthew, that commentary has been lost.  This is one case where it seems that Helvidius and Jerome may have had access to writings we don't have.  From what we can tell, Victorinus was influenced by Origen.  Moreover, Origen tenuously hypothesized that Mary may have remained chaste, even while acknowledging the natural meaning of the words was that Jesus' brethren were Mary and Joseph's children (see below).  So, it's unclear whether Victorinus followed or didn't follow Origen's view.

Origen says that the hypothesis that the brethren are not really brothers is based on two works: "But some say, basing it on a tradition in the Gospel according to Peter, as it is entitled, or “The Book of James,” that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary." (Commentary on Matthew, Book X, Section 17) I pause to point out that these two works are heretical (see discussion of Gospel of Peter - see discussion of Protoevangelium of James) forgeries.  Both sources seem to be Docetic friendly, if not outright Docetic in their authorship.  Origen goes on to say, "And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the first-fruit among men of the purity which consists in chastity, and Mary among women; for it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the first-fruit of virginity."

Neither of the Gospel of Peter nor the Protoevangelium of James is a reliable historical account.  Moreover, the motivation for accepting that view is exactly what Origen says: to make Mary a chaste virgin as some kind of parallel to Jesus.

Witnesses on Jerome's side:

Ignatius:

From Jerome's "Lives of Illustrious Men," we know that Jerome only knew of the seven authentic epistles of Ignatius.  However, none of them mentions Mary as a perpetual virgin.  The reason for this discrepancy is unclear.  There is no good reason to think Jerome had some bonus material from Polycarp.

Polycarp:
Once again, none of Polycarp's extant writings supports Jerome's position, and Jerome's "Lives of Illustrious Men" only identifies Polycarp's still-extant epistle.  So there is no reason to think Jerome had some bonus material from Polycarp.

Irenæus:

You may be seeing a theme here.  While a significant quantity of Irenaeus' writings are extent, they do not have any evidence of teaching on the perpetual virginity.  On the contrary, several statements by Irenaeus imply that he believed she ceased to be a virgin.  For example, he uses "firstborn" to describe Jesus' relationship to Mary, but more significantly he calls Mary "as yet virgin" in parallel to the ground from which Adam was taken.  In the parallel, everyone knows that the ground was subsequently tilled, so it is natural to assume Irenaeus understood Mary the same way (Against Heresies 3:21:10). Similarly, Irenaeus uses the phrase "while yet in virginity" to describe Mary in parallel to Eve, which implies that the condition of virginity subsequently ceased as it also did for Eve (Against Heresies 3.22.4).

Justin Martyr

Same situation as Irenaeus, in that we have extant writings, but there is no apparent support for Jerome's conclusion.

"many other apostolic and eloquent men, who against Ebion, Theodotus of Byzantium, and Valentinus,"

Irenaeus wrote against the Ebionites, and presumably is who Jerome has in mind.  The Ebionites allegedly denied the virgin birth, because they denied Jesus' divinity.

Theodotus of Byzantium apparently similarly asserted that Jesus was non-divine, but that he was adopted by God at Jesus' baptism.  It's unclear who Jerome had in mind here.  Perhaps he meant Hippolytus. 

Hippolytus seems to be ambiguous.  He claims that the brothers were children of Joseph "through seed," but this cannot rule out that they could be Joseph's from an earlier marriage, a second wife, etc.    The most natural understanding of Hippolytus is that he affirmed that the brothers of Jesus were only half brothers (see this interesting post). 

It is unclear who is meant by the person who wrote against Valentinus.  In his Lives, Jerome describes Polycarp as leading back to faith those who had been deceived by Valentinus, so perhaps he means him.

We do not need to accuse Jerome of dishonesty.  He may have sincerely believed that he would find such teachings in their writings.  The bottom line, though, is that he was wrong.

-TurretinFan