Wishful Exegesis - Jephthah's Daughter and Mary Example

There was a rather glaring error repeated over and over again in the recent debate on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.  I don't think it was a lie: I think the debaters believed their own book, which makes the same mistake over and over.  The error arises from the hermeneutical principle of wishful exegesis.

Many doctrines in Roman Catholicism are not based in Scripture.  To try to justify these doctrines, Roman Catholic apologists and others will sometimes engage in what can be most charitably described as wishful exegesis.  Mr. William Albrecht provided a couple of examples of such wishful exegesis in his recent debate on the perpetual virginity of Mary.  We plan to discuss a second example in another post.  In this post, we will discuss the allegation that in the story of the annunciation as recorded by Luke, Mary (and/or Luke) "quoted" from the story of Jephthah in Judges. 

Judges 11:29-40 is the story of Jephthah. Luke 1:26-38 is the story of the annunciation, the time when Gabriel announced to Mary that Mary was pregnant.

Mr. William Albrecht (and his co-author Christiaan Kappes, collectively A&K) in their book, "Mary Among the Evangelists: The Definitive Guide for Solving Biblical Questions about Mary," claimed (emphasis is added by me): 

• "The situation is stunning, for Luke's annunciation has Gabriel, as the Lord's representative, play the part of Jephthah and Mary quotes verbatim Jephthah's ever-virgin daughter by responding to the plan of perpetual virginity entailed by the votive sacrifice as inspired by the Holy Spirit." (p. 84)
• "Luke quotes from Judges 11:39 the only other such phrase in the entire history of the Greek language." (p. 85)
• "Mary quotes verbatim her predecessor, the daughter of Jephthah, to protest her vow of perpetual virginity to the Angel Gabriel that should impede her conception of any child." (p. 87)

From the debate (emphasis obviously mine):

• "Luke is directly quoting this verse." (Circa 18:25 of the Youtube video)
• "Mary is saying the exact words in Luke 1." (Circa 21:00 of the Youtube video)
• "The claim that is being made is the fact that when Mary quotes from Judges 11, she's quoting the exact statements, actually Luke, Luke is quoting it in the language of Mary, putting in the audience for the audience to understanding what is being harkened to ... (Circa 25:50 of the Youtube video) 
• "St. Mary utters the exact words you find in Jephthah's daughter's mouth, you find for Jephthah, Jephthah's daughter, excuse me, I go between Jephthah and Jephthah's daughter over and over, just know that I'm talking about Jephthah's daughter" (Circa 56:52 of the Youtube video)
• "There's a reason when you fire up the greatest Greek database known to mankind that we have in 2022, that you only find two hits in the whole database, throughout all of the Greek literature to the point that we mention (of course, you have more hits later because the early fathers make the connection) that's with Jephthah's daughter and then in Luke 1. The Jephthah's daughter who died a perpetual virgin -- Mary's uttering the exact words  (Circa 57:15 of the Youtube video)
• "There's been no adequate response in regards to the fact that the words of Mary's mouth line up exactly with those found on Jephthah's daughter in Judges 11. There is no way around that." (Circa 1:04:34 of the Youtube video)
• "What is the best you can do and say, 'Well, why she's quoting the words of somebody that was a perpetual virgin, and died a perpetual virgin?' Well there's a lot of parallels, the parallelism is very clear. She's quoting the words of a virgin, a perpetual virgin, to let the audience know, well this is how she's so incredulous as to how she is going to have a child (Circa 1:05:06 of the Youtube video)
• "And she quotes directly from a perpetual virgin who dies a virgin." (Circa 1:14:40 of the Youtube video)
• "We're told that Judges 11 isn't quoted. Really? You're kidding me! Try to key in the Greek in the TLG - the largest Greek database in the world, the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae. Look at the Word Biblical Commentary.  Deal with a Greek scholar. Look, I know a lot of people are armchair theologians and they think that they know Greek. Look, we've had Greek scholars look at this material. The material, this particular argument, was reviewed by one of the top scholars in the world, Dr. Sebastian Brock. The Rev. Dr. Kappes who's written on this, well look up where he got his PhD from, he is a Greek scholar." (Circa 2:09:07 of the Youtube video)

This "quotation" claim, therefore, is not simply a slip of Mr. Albrecht's tongue during the debate, nor a single typo in his book, but a repeated claim.  The major problem is this: 

It is not true.

There are also some minor problems.  For example, the Septuagint text of Judges poses significant challenges, because there are many differences between the text that Rahlfs (one of the most popular critical Septuagints [see endnote 1]) labels A and that Rahlfs labels B.  As it is not a scholarly work, A&K's work does not recognize, much less address this issue.  Even assuming Luke/Mary had access to one of the two Septuagint Judges, A&K's book does not identify which is the correct one, or how they conclude that Luke/Mary had access to that one, as opposed to some other Greek translation and/or the Hebrew text itself.

As a starting point, here are the two texts, with the variants identified (English is from the NET Septuagint):

(A) 39 καὶ ἐγένετο μετὰ τέλος δύο μηνῶν καὶ ἀνέκαμψεν πρὸς τὸν πατέρα αὐτῆς καὶ ἐπετέλεσεν Ιεφθαε τὴν εὐχὴν αὐτοῦ ἣν ηὔξατο καὶ αὐτὴ οὐκ ἔγνω ἄνδρα καὶ ἐγενήθη εἰς πρόσταγμα ἐν Ισραηλ

And it came about after the end of two months that she returned to her father, and Iephthae fulfilled his vow that he had vowed. And she had never known a man. And it became for an ordinance in Israel:

(B) 39 καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν τέλει τῶν δύο μηνῶν καὶ ἐπέστρεψεν πρὸς τὸν πατέρα αὐτῆς καὶ ἐποίησεν ἐν αὐτῇ τὴν εὐχὴν αὐτοῦ ἣν ηὔξατο καὶ αὐτὴ οὐκ ἔγνω ἄνδρα καὶ ἐγένετο εἰς πρόσταγμα ἐν Ισραηλ

And it came about at the end of the two months that she returned to her father, and he carried out against her his vow that he had vowed. And she had never known a man. And it became for an ordinance in Israel:

For what it's worth, Rahlfs does not identify any other notable variants at this verse. As you can see, some of the variants seem relatively minor ("after the end" μετὰ τέλος vs. "at the end" ἐν τέλει) some don't affect translation ("she returned" translates both ἀνέκαμψεν and ἐπέστρεψεν) and some seem to be translations of the underlying Hebrew with a greater or less translational liberty ("Iephthae fulfilled his vow" ἐπετέλεσεν Ιεφθαε τὴν εὐχὴν αὐτοῦ vs. "he carried out against her his vow" ἐποίησεν ἐν αὐτῇ τὴν εὐχὴν αὐτοῦ).

While A&K do not explicitly state what is the alleged verbatim quotation, we can infer from the fact that they bold "And she did not know man" (p. 84) and "I do not know man" (p. 85), that A&K mean that the phrase that is allegedly quoted from Judges 11:39 is this: "καὶ αὐτὴ οὐκ ἔγνω ἄνδρα". 

A&K's translation of Judges 11:39 (p. 85) has: "And she did not know man".  At p. 5, A&K indicate that, "Unless otherwise noted, Scripture quotations are from the New King James Version and New Revised Standard Version of the Bible," but with the additional caveat that: "Some quotations have been modified according to the Greek." (Id.) There is no other note at p. 84.  The NKJV has: "She knew no man."  The NRSV has: "She had never slept with a man."  In fact, "And she did not know man" does not appear to be in any of the major English translations (see this list). Where did it come from?  It's anybody's guess.  While I have my suspicions, I will simply set that to the side.

Oddly enough, A&K provide another translation of the same phrase at page 83, "She knew not man."  That wording happens to line up with the ASV's translation of that particular phrase

Similarly, A&K's translation of Luke 1:34 has: "I do not know man" without any other note. This happens to align only with the Revised Geneva Translation among a list of major English translation (see the list here).  Where did they actually get it from? Once again, we do not know. The NKJV has, "I do not know a man," and the NRSV has, "I am a virgin."  Perhaps they were trying to follow the NKJV here, and just omitted the article.

Even looking at the various English translations of Judges 11:39 and Luke 1:34, you have probably already guessed that this is not going to be a verbatim quotation, since the English translation is different.  Nevertheless, since they appeal to the Greek, to the Greek we will go.  

The Greek phrase is: "καὶ αὐτὴ οὐκ ἔγνω ἄνδρα" (LXX Judges 11:39).  Both the A and B of Rahlfs have the same wording on this phrase.

Luke's and Mary's phrase is: "ἐπεὶ ἄνδρα οὐ γινώσκω" (Luke 1:34).  The critical text and the received text have the same wording here, and there does not to be any significant textual variant at verse 34. With so many manuscripts of Luke in existence, there are probably some variants at this verse, but none of them were significant enough to appear in the printed apparatuses of the NA27 or UBS4.

So, the alleged quotation starts with five Greek words in Judges matched against four Greek words in Luke.  Obviously, "καὶ" (and) is not quoted by Mary/Luke and her "ἐπεὶ" (because) does not come from Judges.  So, now the two phrases are:

J: αὐτὴ οὐκ ἔγνω ἄνδρα

M/L: ἄνδρα οὐ γινώσκω

Of the four words in the first line, you can see that there is one matching word in the second line: "ἄνδρα" (man). The word is in a different position within the phrase, and the rest of the words are different words.  The first phrase even has an extra word compared to the latter.  When only one word of an alleged quotation lines up, what you do not have is a verbatim quotation.  So, the claim was a false claim, no matter how many times it was repeated.

Suppose that A&K corrected their claim to assert that this was an allusion, instead of a quotation.  The problem with claiming that it is an allusion is that you have to have something other than the similarity of words.  The situations of Jephthah's daughter and Mary are remarkably different.  Jephthah's daughter was a young lady living in his house. Mary was betrothed to a husband.  Mary was receiving an angelic promise that she would have a child, Jephthah's daughter was guaranteed that she would not. 

What about the similarity between the phrases?  The similarity is that both have a negative particle (οὐκ in Judges and οὐ in Mark), a form of the verb ginosko (to know), and the word for man.  That's a very slender reed upon which to hang the weight of an alleged allusion.

Notice the grandiose claim about this being "the only other such phrase in the entire history of the Greek language" (A&K, p. 85)

Comparative Example 1

• "καὶ αὐτὴ οὐκ ἔγνω ..." (LXX Hosea 2:10 - corresponds to Hosea 2:8)
• "καὶ αὐτὴ οὐκ ἔγνω ἄνδρα" (LXX Judges 11:39)

Notice how those two places have the same four words, in the same order.  The only difference is the object of knowledge.

In fact, I was able to locate dozens of verses that have the phrase "οὐκ ἔγνω" in the Septuagint, but only that one other verse with the exact phrase "καὶ αὐτὴ οὐκ ἔγνω."  Does that mean that Hosea 2:8 is quoting Judges 11:39?  Does that mean that there is an allusion?  Absolutely not.

To assert that this is a quotation or an allusion would just be wishful exegesis.

Comparative Example 2 

• Genesis 4:9 καὶ εἶπεν ὁ θεὸς πρὸς Καιν ποῦ ἐστιν Αβελ ὁ ἀδελφός σου ὁ δὲ εἶπεν οὐ γινώσκω μὴ φύλαξ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ μού εἰμι ἐγώ
• Genesis 27:2 καὶ εἶπεν ἰδοὺ γεγήρακα καὶ οὐ γινώσκω τὴν ἡμέραν τῆς τελευτῆς μου
• Luke 1:34 εἶπεν δὲ Μαριὰμ πρὸς τὸν ἄγγελον· πῶς ἔσται τοῦτο, ἐπεὶ ἄνδρα οὐ γινώσκω;

Notice how those three places have the same pair of words, in the same order.  In the first one Cain says he doesn't know where Abel is.  In the second, Isaac says he doesn't know when he's going to die.  Is Luke quoting from these verses?  Are these allusions just because the identical phrase is used?  Absolutely not.

To assert that these are quotations or allusions would just be wishful exegesis.

Comparative Example 3 

• Genesis 19:8 εἰσὶν δέ μοι δύο θυγατέρες αἳ οὐκ ἔγνωσαν ἄνδρα ἐξάξω αὐτὰς πρὸς ὑμᾶς καὶ χρήσασθε αὐταῗς καθὰ ἂν ἀρέσκῃ ὑμῗν μόνον εἰς τοὺς ἄνδρας τούτους μὴ ποιήσητε μηδὲν ἄδικον οὗ εἵνεκεν εἰσῆλθον ὑπὸ τὴν σκέπην τῶν δοκῶν μου
• Judges 21:12 καὶ εὗρον ἀπὸ τῶν κατοικούντων Ιαβις Γαλααδ τετρακοσίας νεάνιδας παρθένους αἳ οὐκ ἔγνωσαν ἄνδρα εἰς κοίτην ἄρσενος καὶ ἦγον αὐτὰς εἰς τὴν παρεμβολὴν εἰς Σηλω ἥ ἐστιν ἐν γῇ Χανααν
• Judges 11:39 καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν τέλει τῶν δύο μηνῶν καὶ ἐπέστρεψε πρὸς τὸν πατέρα αὐτῆς, καὶ ἐποίησεν ἐν αὐτῇ εὐχὴν αὐτοῦ, ἣν ηὔξατο· καὶ αὕτη οὐκ ἔγνω ἄνδρα. καὶ ἐγένετο εἰς πρόσταγμα ἐν ᾿Ισραήλ·
• Luke 1:34 εἶπεν δὲ Μαριὰμ πρὸς τὸν ἄγγελον· πῶς ἔσται τοῦτο, ἐπεὶ ἄνδρα οὐ γινώσκω;

I provide this comparative example because someone may try to say that I'm not being fair because Judges and Luke have a word that can be translated "not," together with a word for "man," and a word that is a form of the verb, "to know."  Is Judges 11:39 unique as a previous case of that?  No, it is not.  Genesis 19:8 and Judges 21:12 also have the same.  Genesis 19:8 is about Lot's daughters who were of zero interest to the men of Sodom, and Judges 21:12 is about the four hundred young women who became the brides of the surviving Benjamites.  

Does the similarity mean that Mary and/or Luke was alluding back to Sodom or to Jabeshgilead?  Does that make it a verbatim quotation or anything like that? Of course not.

To assert that these are quotations or allusions would just be wishful exegesis, which is exactly what the argument from Luke 1 to Judges 11 was, as I hope we have satisfactorily proven.

-TurretinFan

Post Script About Drs. Brock and Kappes

I understand that William was under pressure to bolster his argument after I pointed out during the debate that the claim being made was false.  So, William appealed to the authority of two men, as allegedly "Greek scholars."  I certainly invite either of these men to try to justify the claims that William made, based on their alleged erudition on the topic. [Update: I see that Dr. Kappes has already responded with an indication that more response will follow.  I have updated this post to correct the typographic error of "Rahlf's" to "Rahlfs" that he helpfully identified. I may further update or supplement this post based on his comments.]

Dr. Christiaan Kappes is the co-author of William's book I criticize above.  I cannot tell from the book whether Kappes wrote particular chapters and Albrecht wrote others, or how they collaborated.  So, I attribute all of the work to both of them.  As such, Kappes is not exactly an independent witness to the merits of this argument.  Dr. Kappes' PhD is in Comparative Theology.  Don't get me wrong.  I don't doubt that Dr. Kappes knows at least some Greek: his PhD in comparative theology is from a prestigious Greek university, and the topic of his doctoral thesis was about George-Gennadios Kourteses Scholarios, a 15th century theologian who wrote in both Greek and Latin.  Dr. Kappes' dissertation is, as far as I can tell, written in English.  He does offer translation of a few sentences or paragraphs from Greek to English within the thesis (for example, at pp. 16, 113, and 191-92), and many of the primary sources cited (see p. 373 and following) are in Greek.  So, though Kappes does not have a doctorate in Greek or a thesis centered on providing a new translation of a Greek text, or the like, Kappes certainly does present himself as a scholar who is familiar with Greek.  So, Kappes should know better.  I don't think it would be reasonable for him to use as an excuse that he is just an armchair theologian. He knows what quotation is, and he should know that it is not correct to call this a quotation.

Dr. Sebastian Brock is one of five men who endorsed A&K's book, and apparently the only one of the group who is not a Roman Catholic.  Dr. Brock's endorsement, with the others, can be found at p. 11 of A&K's book.  Dr. Brock is a scholar of the Classical Syriac language.  I have not bothered the octogenarian Dr. Brock for comment about this allegation that the text is a quotation.  While Dr. Brock has a particular focus on Syriac, Dr. Brock is also familiar with Greek and has published various things that deal with the interaction between Syriac and Greek.  I have serious doubts that Dr. Brock would agree with the materials I've quoted (actually quoted) from A&K's book or the statements I've quoted from the debate.

I don't think either Dr. Kappes or Dr. Brock would continue to insist that a vaugely similar wording is a "quotation."  They may want to believe that it is an allusion, but - of course - allusion is often in the eye of the beholder, and simply claiming that it is an allusion would not have had the rhetorical force in the debate. In case either of these doctors ultimately distance themselves from the "quotation" claim, I will be happy to update this section.

Reference Materials

Judges 11:29-40

29 Then the Spirit of the LORD came upon Jephthah, and he passed over Gilead, and Manasseh, and passed over Mizpeh of Gilead, and from Mizpeh of Gilead he passed over unto the children of Ammon. 30 And Jephthah vowed a vow unto the LORD, and said, If thou shalt without fail deliver the children of Ammon into mine hands, 31 Then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, shall surely be the LORD'S, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering. 32 So Jephthah passed over unto the children of Ammon to fight against them; and the LORD delivered them into his hands. 33 And he smote them from Aroer, even till thou come to Minnith, even twenty cities, and unto the plain of the vineyards, with a very great slaughter. Thus the children of Ammon were subdued before the children of Israel. 34 And Jephthah came to Mizpeh unto his house, and, behold, his daughter came out to meet him with timbrels and with dances: and she was his only child; beside her he had neither son nor daughter. 35 And it came to pass, when he saw her, that he rent his clothes, and said, Alas, my daughter! thou hast brought me very low, and thou art one of them that trouble me: for I have opened my mouth unto the LORD, and I cannot go back. 36 And she said unto him, My father, if thou hast opened thy mouth unto the LORD, do to me according to that which hath proceeded out of thy mouth; forasmuch as the LORD hath taken vengeance for thee of thine enemies, even of the children of Ammon. 37 And she said unto her father, Let this thing be done for me: let me alone two months, that I may go up and down upon the mountains, and bewail my virginity, I and my fellows. 38 And he said, Go. And he sent her away for two months: and she went with her companions, and bewailed her virginity upon the mountains. 39 And it came to pass at the end of two months, that she returned unto her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had vowed: and she knew no man. And it was a custom in Israel, 40 That the daughters of Israel went yearly to lament the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite four days in a year.

Luke 1:26-38

26 And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, 27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary. 28 And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. 29 And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be. 30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. 31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. 32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: 33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. 34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? 35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. 36 And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren. 37 For with God nothing shall be impossible. 38 And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.

You can probably already see from the English that there is not a quotation: just two-ish points of verbal similarity.  However, since the Greek is not necessarily the same as English, let's look at the Greek.

Here's the text in the Septuagint (B version):

29 Καὶ ἐγένετο ἐπὶ ᾿Ιεφθάε πνεῦμα Κυρίου, καὶ παρῆλθε τὸν Γαλαὰδ καὶ τὸν Μανασσῆ καὶ παρῆλθε τὴν σκοπιὰν Γαλαὰδ εἰς τὸ πέραν υἱῶν ᾿Αμμών. 30 καὶ ηὔξατο ᾿Ιεφθάε εὐχὴν τῷ Κυρίῳ καὶ εἶπεν· ἐὰν διδοὺς δῷς μοι τοὺς υἱοὺς ᾿Αμμὼν ἐν τῇ χειρί μου, 31 καὶ ἔσται ὁ ἐκπορευόμενος, ὃς ἂν ἐξέλθῃ ἀπὸ τῆς θύρας τοῦ οἴκου μου εἰς συνάντησίν μου ἐν τῷ ἐπιστρέφειν με ἐν εἰρήνῃ ἀπὸ υἱῶν ᾿Αμμών, καὶ ἔσται τῷ Κυρίῳ ἀνοίσω αὐτὸν ὁλοκαύτωμα. 32 καὶ παρῆλθεν ᾿Ιεφθάε πρὸς υἱοὺς ᾿Αμμὼν παρατάξασθαι πρὸς αὐτούς, καὶ παρέδωκεν αὐτοὺς Κύριος ἐν χειρὶ αὐτοῦ. 33 καὶ ἐπάταξεν αὐτοὺς ἀπὸ ᾿Αροὴρ ἕως ἐλθεῖν ἄχρις ᾿Αρνὼν ἐν ἀριθμῷ εἴκοσι πόλεις καὶ ἕως ᾿Εβελχαρμὶμ πληγὴν μεγάλην σφόδρα, καὶ συνεστάλησαν οἱ υἱοὶ ᾿Αμμὼν ἀπὸ προσώπου υἱῶν ᾿Ισραήλ.

34 Καὶ ἦλθεν ᾿Ιεφθάε εἰς Μασσηφὰ εἰς τὸν οἶκον αὐτοῦ, καὶἰδοὺ ἡ θυγάτηρ αὐτοῦ ἐξεπορεύετο εἰς ὑπάντησιν ἐν τυμπάνοις καὶ χοροῖς· καὶ αὕτη ἦν μονογενής, οὐκ ἦν αὐτῷ ἕτερος υἱὸς ἢ θυγάτηρ. 35 καὶ ἐγένετο ὡς εἶδεν αὐτὴν αὐτός, διέρρηξε τὰ ἱμάτια αὐτοῦ καὶ εἶπεν· ἆ ἆ, θυγάτηρ μου, ταραχῇ ἐτάραξάς με καὶ σὺ ἦς ἐν τῷ ταράχῳ μου, καὶ ἐγώ εἰμι ἤνοιξα κατὰ σοῦ τὸ στόμα μου πρὸς Κύριον καὶ οὐ δυνήσομαι ἀποστρέψαι. 36 ἡ δὲ εἶπε πρὸς αὐτόν· πάτερ, ἤνοιξας τὸ στόμα σου πρὸς Κύριον; ποίησόν μοι ὃν τρόπον ἐξῆλθεν ἐκ στόματός σου, ἐν τῷ ποιῆσαί σοι Κύριον ἐκδίκησιν τῶν ἐχθρῶν σου ἀπὸ τῶν υἱῶν ᾿Αμμών. 37 καὶ ἥδε εἶπε πρὸς τὸν πατέρα αὐτῆς· ποιησάτω δὴ ὁ πατήρ μου τὸν λόγον τοῦτον· ἔασόν με δύο μῆνας, καὶ πορεύσομαι καὶ καταβήσομαι ἐπὶ τὰ ὄρη καὶ κλαύσομαι ἐπὶ τὰ παρθένιά μου, ἐγώ εἰμι καὶ αἱ συνεταιρίδες μου. 38 καὶ εἶπε· πορεύου· καὶ ἀπέστειλεν αὐτὴν δύο μῆνας. καὶ ἐπορεύθη, αὐτὴ καὶ αἱ συνεταιρίδες αὐτῆς, καὶ ἔκλαυσεν ἐπὶ τὰ παρθένια αὐτῆς ἐπὶ τὰ ὄρη. 39 καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν τέλει τῶν δύο μηνῶν καὶ ἐπέστρεψε πρὸς τὸν πατέρα αὐτῆς, καὶ ἐποίησεν ἐν αὐτῇ εὐχὴν αὐτοῦ, ἣν ηὔξατο· καὶ αὕτη οὐκ ἔγνω ἄνδρα. καὶ ἐγένετο εἰς πρόσταγμα ἐν ᾿Ισραήλ· 40 ἀπὸ ἡμερῶν εἰς ἡμέρας ἐπορεύοντο θυγατέρες ᾿Ισραὴλ θρηνεῖν τὴν θυγατέρα ᾿Ιεφθάε τοῦ Γαλααδίτου ἐπὶ τέσσαρας ἡμέρας ἐν τῷ ἐνιαυτῷ.

Here's the text of the New Testament, Luke 1:26-38 (NA28):

26Ἐν δὲ τῷ μηνὶ τῷ ἕκτῳ ἀπεστάλη ὁ ἄγγελος Γαβριὴλ ἀπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ εἰς πόλιν τῆς Γαλιλαίας ᾗ ὄνομα Ναζαρὲθ 27πρὸς παρθένον ἐμνηστευμένην ἀνδρὶ ᾧ ὄνομα Ἰωσὴφ ἐξ οἴκου Δαυὶδ καὶ τὸ ὄνομα τῆς παρθένου Μαριάμ. 28καὶ εἰσελθὼν πρὸς αὐτὴν εἶπεν· χαῖρε, κεχαριτωμένη, ὁ κύριος μετὰ σοῦ. 29ἡ δὲ ἐπὶ τῷ λόγῳ διεταράχθη καὶ διελογίζετο ποταπὸς εἴη ὁ ἀσπασμὸς οὗτος.  30Καὶ εἶπεν ὁ ἄγγελος αὐτῇ·

μὴ φοβοῦ, Μαριάμ, εὗρες γὰρ χάριν παρὰ τῷ θεῷ.

31καὶ ἰδοὺ συλλήμψῃ ἐν γαστρὶ καὶ τέξῃ υἱὸν

καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦν.

32οὗτος ἔσται μέγας καὶ υἱὸς ὑψίστου κληθήσεται

καὶ δώσει αὐτῷ κύριος ὁ θεὸς τὸν θρόνον Δαυὶδ τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ,

33καὶ βασιλεύσει ἐπὶ τὸν οἶκον Ἰακὼβ εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας

καὶ τῆς βασιλείας αὐτοῦ οὐκ ἔσται τέλος.

34εἶπεν δὲ Μαριὰμ πρὸς τὸν ἄγγελον· πῶς ἔσται τοῦτο, ἐπεὶ ἄνδρα οὐ γινώσκω; 35καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς ὁ ἄγγελος εἶπεν αὐτῇ·

πνεῦμα ἅγιον ἐπελεύσεται ἐπὶ σὲ

καὶ δύναμις ὑψίστου ἐπισκιάσει σοι·

διὸ καὶ τὸ γεννώμενον ἅγιον κληθήσεται υἱὸς θεοῦ.

36καὶ ἰδοὺ Ἐλισάβετ ἡ συγγενίς σου καὶ αὐτὴ συνείληφεν υἱὸν ἐν γήρει αὐτῆς καὶ οὗτος μὴν ἕκτος ἐστὶν αὐτῇ τῇ καλουμένῃ στείρᾳ· 37ὅτι οὐκ ἀδυνατήσει παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ πᾶν ῥῆμα. 38εἶπεν δὲ Μαριάμ· ἰδοὺ ἡ δούλη κυρίου· γένοιτό μοι κατὰ τὸ ῥῆμά σου.  Καὶ ἀπῆλθεν ἀπ’ αὐτῆς ὁ ἄγγελος.

"House" in the New Testament

 How is "house" (οἶκος) used in the New Testament?

It can be used of a physical structure, namely an actual building whether a person's dwelling or the temple.  It can also be used of a huge family group:

"House of Israel" Matthew 10:6

"House of David" Luke 1:27

"House of Jacob" Luke 1:33

But when it says "his own house," it doesn't have that broad sense.  Instead it means to the place that the person lives, and the people there.

Matthew 13:57

And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house.

Mark 6:4

But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house.

Luke 1:23

And it came to pass, that, as soon as the days of his ministration were accomplished, he departed to his own house.

Luke 1:56

And Mary abode with her about three months, and returned to her own house.

Luke 5:25

And immediately he rose up before them, and took up that whereon he lay, and departed to his own house, glorifying God.

Luke 5:29

And Levi made him a great feast in his own house: and there was a great company of publicans and of others that sat down with them.

Luke 8:39

Return to thine own house, and shew how great things God hath done unto thee. And he went his way, and published throughout the whole city how great things Jesus had done unto him.

John 7:53

And every man went unto his own house.

1 Timothy 3:4-5

One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

1 Timothy 5:8

But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.

Response to Jerome's Response to Helvidius - Part 24

Jerome wrote a response to Helvidius regarding the virginity of Mary.  This post is the twenty-fourth (and final!) in a series of responses to what Jerome wrote.

Jerome wrote:

I have become rhetorical, and have disported myself a little like a platform orator. You compelled me, Helvidius; for, brightly as the Gospel shines at the present day, you will have it that equal glory attaches to virginity and to the marriage state. And because I think that, finding the truth too strong for you, you will turn to disparaging my life and abusing my character (it is the way of weak women to talk tittle-tattle in corners when they have been put down by their masters), I shall anticipate you. I assure you that I shall regard your railing as a high distinction, since the same lips that assail me have disparaged Mary, and I, a servant of the Lord, am favoured with the same barking eloquence as His mother. 

Yes, Jerome has indeed waxed rather rhetorical.  Whether Helvidius ever responded in kind, we do not know (or at least, I do not).  On the other hand, while I may be willing to grant Jerome his intent to defend Mary, he has defended her by picturing her as a mere ward, not the wife she was.  He has painted her as though she were a 5th century nun, rather than a first century bride.  Jerome placed his own values above the words of Scripture, and in doing so did not defend Mary.

-TurretinFan

Response to Jerome's Response to Helvidius - Part 23

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

Jerome wrote:

I do not deny that holy women are found both among widows and those who have husbands; but they are such as have ceased to be wives, or such as, even in the close bond of marriage, imitate virgin chastity. The Apostle, Christ speaking in him, briefly bore witness to this when he said, “She that is unmarried is careful for the things of the Lord, how she may please the Lord: but she that is married is careful for the things of the world, how she may please her husband.” He leaves us the free exercise of our reason in the matter. He lays no necessity upon anyone nor leads anyone into a snare: he only persuades to that which is proper when he wishes all men to be as himself. He had not, it is true, a commandment from the Lord respecting virginity, for that grace surpasses the unassisted power of man, and it would have worn an air of immodesty to force men to fly in the face of nature, and to say in other words, I want you to be what the angels are. It is this angelic purity which secures to virginity its highest reward, and the Apostle might have seemed to despise a course of life which involves no guilt. Nevertheless in the immediate context he adds, “But I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful. I think therefore that this is good by reason of the present distress, namely, that it is good for a man to be as he is.” What is meant by present distress? “Woe unto them that are with child and to them that give suck in those days!” The reason why the wood grows up is that it may be cut down. The field is sown that it may be reaped. The world is already full, and the population is too large for the soil. Every day we are being cut down by war, snatched away by disease, swallowed up by shipwreck, although we go to law with one another about the fences of our property. It is only one addition to the general rule which is made by those who follow the Lamb, and who have not defiled their garments, for they have continued in their virgin state. Notice the meaning of defiling. I shall not venture to explain it, for fear Helvidius may be abusive. I agree with you, when you say, that some virgins are nothing but tavern women; I say still more, that even adulteresses may be found among them, and, you will no doubt be still more surprised to hear, that some of the clergy are inn-keepers and some monks unchaste. Who does not at once understand that a tavern woman cannot be a virgin, nor an adulterer a monk, nor a clergy-man a tavern-keeper? Are we to blame virginity if its counterfeit is at fault? For my part, to pass over other persons and come to the virgin, I maintain that she who is engaged in huckstering, though for anything I know she may be a virgin in body, is no longer one in spirit. 

I certainly reject Jerome's notion that there is a higher reward to celibacy than to marriage.  I would emphasize to him that a bishop ought generally to be a husband, notwithstanding the tradition to the contrary that had already developed.  Jerome's preference for celibacy is faulty, and it is the motivation behind his response to Helvidius.

-TurretinFan

Response to Jerome's Response to Helvidius - Part 22

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

Jerome wrote:

And now that I am about to institute a comparison between virginity and marriage, I beseech my readers not to suppose that in praising virginity I have in the least disparaged marriage, and separated the saints of the Old Testament from those of the New, that is to say, those who had wives and those who altogether refrained from the embraces of women: I rather think that in accordance with the difference in time and circumstance one rule applied to the former, another to us upon whom the ends of the world have come. So long as that law remained, “Be fruitful, and multiply and replenish the earth”; and “Cursed is the barren woman that beareth not seed in Israel,” they all married and were given in marriage, left father and mother, and became one flesh. But once in tones of thunder the words were heard, “The time is shortened, that henceforth those that have wives may be as though they had none”: cleaving to the Lord, we are made one spirit with Him. And why? Because “He that is unmarried is careful for the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord: but he that is married is careful for the things of the world, how he may please his wife. And there is a difference also between the wife and the virgin. She that is unmarried is careful for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married is careful for the things of the world, how she may please her husband.” Why do you cavil? Why do you resist? The vessel of election says this; he tells us that there is a difference between the wife and the virgin. Observe what the happiness of that state must be in which even the distinction of sex is lost. The virgin is no longer called a woman. “She that is unmarried is careful for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit.” A virgin is defined as she that is holy in body and in spirit, for it is no good to have virgin flesh if a woman be married in mind.

“But she that is married is careful for the things of the world, how she may please her husband.” Do you think there is no difference between one who spends her time in prayer and fasting, and one who must, at her husband’s approach, make up her countenance, walk with mincing gait, and feign a shew of endearment? The virgin’s aim is to appear less comely; she will wrong herself so as to hide her natural attractions. The married woman has the paint laid on before her mirror, and, to the insult of her Maker, strives to acquire something more than her natural beauty. Then come the prattling of infants, the noisy household, children watching for her word and waiting for her kiss, the reckoning up of expenses, the preparation to meet the outlay. On one side you will see a company of cooks, girded for the onslaught and attacking the meat: there you may hear the hum of a multitude of weavers. Meanwhile a message is delivered that the husband and his friends have arrived. The wife, like a swallow, flies all over the house. “She has to see to everything. Is the sofa smooth? Is the pavement swept? Are the flowers in the cups? Is dinner ready?” Tell me, pray, where amid all this is there room for the thought of God? Are these happy homes? Where there is the beating of drums, the noise and clatter of pipe and lute, the clanging of cymbals, can any fear of God be found? The parasite is snubbed and feels proud of the honour. Enter next the half-naked victims of the passions, a mark for every lustful eye. The unhappy wife must either take pleasure in them, and perish, or be displeased, and provoke her husband. Hence arises discord, the seed-plot of divorce. Or suppose you find me a house where these things are unknown, which is a rara avis indeed! yet even there the very management of the household, the education of the children, the wants of the husband, the correction of the servants, cannot fail to call away the mind from the thought of God. “It had ceased to be with Sarah after the manner of women”: so the Scripture says, and afterwards Abraham received the command, “In all that Sarah saith unto thee, hearken unto her voice.” She who is not subject to the anxiety and pain of child-bearing and having passed the change of life has ceased to perform the functions of a woman, is freed from the curse of God: nor is her desire to her husband, but on the contrary her husband becomes subject to her, and the voice of the Lord commands him, “In all that Sarah saith unto thee, hearken unto her voice.” Thus they begin to have time for prayer. For so long as the debt of marriage is paid, earnest prayer is neglected.  

Jerome argues "I rather think that in accordance with the difference in time and circumstance one rule applied to the former, another to us upon whom the ends of the world have come."  Even if we were to accept this argument in theory, Mary was a part of the former.  She went to Jerusalem for the sacrifice of her purification under the former.

Moreover, Jerome is wrong about the latter being different from the former when it comes to marriage.

Hebrews 13:4 Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.

Moreover, while a single person may focus more attention on the worship of God, Mary lived as a married woman, kept a house with Joseph, and raised Jesus (not even to mention his brethren and sisters).  She continued in the company of his brethren even after He began his ministry.  One may try to claim that she never knew Joseph, but they openly traveled together and lived together.  She did not remain in her father's house.

As for Jerome's deprecation of the lives of married women, I think it speaks its own condemnation, as every godly wife and mother can attest.  The bottom line, though, is that Mary did not live in some nunnery.  She lived in a house with Joseph and raised Jesus and his brethren. 

I will just add that this strong preference for celibacy over marriage is why it was so important to Jerome to claim that Mary remained celibate even after Jesus' birth.

-TurretinFan

Response to Jerome's Response to Helvidius - Part 21

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

Jerome wrote:

But as we do not deny what is written, so we do reject what is not written. We believe that God was born of the Virgin, because we read it. That Mary was married after she brought forth, we do not believe, because we do not read it. Nor do we say this to condemn marriage, for virginity itself is the fruit of marriage; but because when we are dealing with saints we must not judge rashly. If we adopt possibility as the standard of judgment, we might maintain that Joseph had several wives because Abraham had, and so had Jacob, and that the Lord’s brethren were the issue of those wives, an invention which some hold with a rashness which springs from audacity not from piety. You say that Mary did not continue a virgin: I claim still more, that Joseph himself on account of Mary was a virgin, so that from a virgin wedlock a virgin son was born. For if as a holy man he does not come under the imputation of fornication, and it is nowhere written that he had another wife, but was the guardian of Mary whom he was supposed to have to wife rather than her husband, the conclusion is that he who was thought worthy to be called father of the Lord, remained a virgin.  

What's interesting about Jerome's standard is that if we do the same with the dogma of the perpetual virginity, look at the result: "But as we do not deny what is written, so we do reject what is not written."  It is certain that Mary was Joseph's wife, for Scripture writes it.  They did not need to marry after she brought forth, they merely needed to come together.  What is not written (or even hinted) in Scripture is that Mary remained a virgin until the end of her time on earth.

As for Joseph being a polygamist like some of his ancestors, it should be noted that this is rendered implausible by the strict monogamy imposed by Ezra and maintained by the Jews of the first century.

Jerome is quite wrong to say that it was written that Joseph was "the guardian of Mary."  Rather he is always described as her husband.

Moreover, while it is true that children of fornication by Joseph could have existed, there is no evidence to suggest that they would have been accepted into Mary's family, such that they would have been traveling with her, rather than their own mother.

-TurretinFan

Response to Jerome's Response to Helvidius - Part 20

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

Jerome wrote:

I now direct the attack against the passage in which, wishing to show your cleverness, you institute a comparison between virginity and marriage. I could not forbear smiling, and I thought of the proverb, did you ever see a camel dance? “Are virgins better,” you ask, “than Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who were married men? Are not infants daily fashioned by the hands of God in the wombs of their mothers? And if so, are we bound to blush at the thought of Mary having a husband after she was delivered? If they find any disgrace in this, they ought not consistently even to believe that God was born of the Virgin by natural delivery. For according to them there is more dishonour in a virgin giving birth to God by the organs of generation, than in a virgin being joined to her own husband after she has been delivered.” Add, if you like, Helvidius, the other humiliations of nature, the womb for nine months growing larger, the sickness, the delivery, the blood, the swaddling-clothes. Picture to yourself the infant in the enveloping membranes. Introduce into your picture the hard manger, the wailing of the infant, the circumcision on the eighth day, the time of purification, so that he may be proved to be unclean. We do not blush, we are not put to silence. The greater the humiliations He endured for me, the more I owe Him. And when you have given every detail, you will be able to produce nothing more shameful than the cross, which we confess, in which we believe, and by which we triumph over our enemies.  

Notice well that in this point, Jerome is fundamentally inconsistent with the notion of in partu virginity.  Instead, we see Jerome embracing Helvidius' picture of a natural, bloody childbirth, not rejecting it.  I think he missed Helvidius' point, but that's ok.  The point is that if you accept that Mary's birth canal let Jesus path through, you should not think it some harm to Mary that Joseph knew her after.

-TurretinFan

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

Response to Jerome's Response to Helvidius - Part 18

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

Jerome wrote:

There are things which, in your extreme ignorance, you had never read, and therefore you neglected the whole range of Scripture and employed your madness in outraging the Virgin, like the man in the story who being unknown to everybody and finding that he could devise no good deed by which to gain renown, burned the temple of Diana: and when no one revealed the sacrilegious act, it is said that he himself went up and down proclaiming that he was the man who had applied the fire. The rulers of Ephesus were curious to know what made him do this thing, whereupon he replied that if he could not have fame for good deeds, all men should give him credit for bad ones. Grecian history relates the incident. But you do worse. You have set on fire the temple of the Lord’s body, you have defiled the sanctuary of the Holy Spirit from which you are determined to make a team of four brethren and a heap of sisters come forth. In a word, joining in the chorus of the Jews, you say, “Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Judas? and his sisters, are they not all with us? The word all would not be used if there were not a crowd of them.” Pray tell me, who, before you appeared, was acquainted with this blasphemy? who thought the theory worth two-pence? You have gained your desire, and are become notorious by crime. For myself who am your opponent, although we live in the same city, I don’t know, as the saying is, whether you are white or black. I pass over faults of diction which abound in every book you write. I say not a word about your absurd introduction. Good heavens! I do not ask for eloquence, since, having none yourself, you applied for a supply of it to your brother Craterius. I do not ask for grace of style, I look for purity of soul: for with Christians it is the greatest of solecisms and of vices of style to introduce anything base either in word or action. I am come to the conclusion of my argument. I will deal with you as though I had as yet prevailed nothing; and you will find yourself on the horns of a dilemma. It is clear that our Lord’s brethren bore the name in the same way that Joseph was called his father: “I and thy father sought thee sorrowing.” It was His mother who said this, not the Jews. The Evangelist himself relates that His father and His mother were marvelling at the things which were spoken concerning Him, and there are similar passages which we have already quoted in which Joseph and Mary are called his parents. Seeing that you have been foolish enough to persuade yourself that the Greek manuscripts are corrupt, you will perhaps plead the diversity of readings. I therefore come to the Gospel of John, and there it is plainly written, “Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.” You will certainly find this in your manuscript. Now tell me, how is Jesus the son of Joseph when it is clear that He was begotten of the Holy Ghost? Was Joseph His true father? Dull as you are, you will not venture to say that. Was he His reputed father? If so, let the same rule be applied to them when they are called brethren, that you apply to Joseph when he is called father.  

As this section is long, I will again break it into chunks and respond piecemeal.

1) "There are things which, in your extreme ignorance, you had never read, and therefore you neglected the whole range of Scripture and employed your madness in outraging the Virgin, like the man in the story who being unknown to everybody and finding that he could devise no good deed by which to gain renown, burned the temple of Diana: and when no one revealed the sacrilegious act, it is said that he himself went up and down proclaiming that he was the man who had applied the fire. The rulers of Ephesus were curious to know what made him do this thing, whereupon he replied that if he could not have fame for good deeds, all men should give him credit for bad ones. Grecian history relates the incident."

It's my first time reading about this incident, but of course I don't see myself in the role described.  Quite the opposite.

2) "But you do worse. You have set on fire the temple of the Lord’s body, you have defiled the sanctuary of the Holy Spirit from which you are determined to make a team of four brethren and a heap of sisters come forth. In a word, joining in the chorus of the Jews, you say, “Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Judas? and his sisters, are they not all with us? The word all would not be used if there were not a crowd of them.”"

Redirect your rage, Jerome.  We are defending Mary's honor as being a faithful wife to her husband Joseph.  We are the ones calling her blessed by saying that she was blessed with many children.  And those words that you call the chorus of the Jews are the words the Evangelists reported for our benefit, words that the Savior did not deny.

3) "Pray tell me, who, before you appeared, was acquainted with this blasphemy? who thought the theory worth two-pence?" 

You mean, of course, aside from the Holy Spirit who inspired Scripture?  But were there any before Helvidius who shared his opinion?  It seems that, in fact, there were.

4) "You have gained your desire, and are become notorious by crime. For myself who am your opponent, although we live in the same city, I don’t know, as the saying is, whether you are white or black. I pass over faults of diction which abound in every book you write. I say not a word about your absurd introduction. Good heavens! I do not ask for eloquence, since, having none yourself, you applied for a supply of it to your brother Craterius. I do not ask for grace of style, I look for purity of soul: for with Christians it is the greatest of solecisms and of vices of style to introduce anything base either in word or action." 

It is true that Helvidius is now (as perhaps also then) chiefly known by the fact that he wrote on this topic, and even more that Jerome replied.  Jerome's "you're a nobody" and "you're not eloquent" are obviously just more ad hominem.

5) "I am come to the conclusion of my argument. I will deal with you as though I had as yet prevailed nothing; and you will find yourself on the horns of a dilemma. It is clear that our Lord’s brethren bore the name in the same way that Joseph was called his father: “I and thy father sought thee sorrowing.” It was His mother who said this, not the Jews. The Evangelist himself relates that His father and His mother were marvelling at the things which were spoken concerning Him, and there are similar passages which we have already quoted in which Joseph and Mary are called his parents. Seeing that you have been foolish enough to persuade yourself that the Greek manuscripts are corrupt, you will perhaps plead the diversity of readings. I therefore come to the Gospel of John, and there it is plainly written, “Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.” You will certainly find this in your manuscript. Now tell me, how is Jesus the son of Joseph when it is clear that He was begotten of the Holy Ghost? Was Joseph His true father? Dull as you are, you will not venture to say that. Was he His reputed father? If so, let the same rule be applied to them when they are called brethren, that you apply to Joseph when he is called father."

We cannot object to this point, nor do we wish to do so.  It is indeed true that while the brethren and sisters of Jesus were reputed to be full blood brothers and sisters, they were only half blood.  For Joseph was only the reputed, presumed, and adoptive father of Jesus, not his biological father.

Of course, though, this parallel only supports our and Helvidius' argument, it does not undermine it.

Moreover, note that Jerome's comment about the Greek manuscripts is quite vague without being able to see whatever Helvidius wrote.  It looks like Jerome is saying that Helvidius must be calling the Greek manuscripts of the day corrupt, and that Helvidius may be pointing to some textual variant.  If we ever find a copy of Helvidius' work (and we have no expectation that we will), it would be very interesting to find out what he said.  

-TurretinFan

Response to Jerome's Response to Helvidius - Part 17

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

Jerome wrote:

Innumerable instances of the same kind are to be found in the sacred books. But, to be brief, I will return to the last of the four classes of brethren, those, namely, who are brethren by affection, and these again fall into two divisions, those of the spiritual and those of the general relationship. I say spiritual because all of us Christians are called brethren, as in the verse, “Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity.” And in another psalm the Saviour says, “I will declare thy name unto my brethren.” And elsewhere, “Go unto my brethren and say to them.” I say also general, because we are all children of one Father, there is a like bond of brotherhood between us all. “Tell these who hate you,” says the prophet, “ye are our brethren.” And the Apostle writing to the Corinthians: “If any man that is named brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner: with such a one no, not to eat.” I now ask to which class you consider the Lord’s brethren in the Gospel must be assigned. They are brethren by nature, you say. But Scripture does not say so; it calls them neither sons of Mary, nor of Joseph. Shall we say they are brethren by race? But it is absurd to suppose that a few Jews were called His brethren when all Jews of the time might upon this principle have borne the title. Were they brethren by virtue of close intimacy and the union of heart and mind? If that were so, who were more truly His brethren than the apostles who received His private instruction and were called by Him His mother and His brethren? Again, if all men, as such, were His brethren, it would have been foolish to deliver a special message, “Behold, thy brethren seek thee,” for all men alike were entitled to the name. The only alternative is to adopt the previous explanation and understand them to be called brethren in virtue of the bond of kindred, not of love and sympathy, nor by prerogative of race, nor yet by nature. Just as Lot was called Abraham’s brother, and Jacob Laban’s, just as the daughters of Zelophehad received a lot among their brethren, just as Abraham himself had to wife Sarah his sister, for he says, “She is indeed my sister, on the father’s side, not on the mother’s,” that is to say, she was the daughter of his brother, not of his sister. Otherwise, what are we to say of Abraham, a just man, taking to wife the daughter of his own father? Scripture, in relating the history of the men of early times, does not outrage our ears by speaking of the enormity in express terms, but prefers to leave it to be inferred by the reader: and God afterwards gives to the prohibition the sanction of the law, and threatens, “He who takes his sister, born of his father, or of his mother, and beholds her nakedness, hath commited abomination, he shall be utterly destroyed. He hath uncovered his sister’s nakedness, he shall bear his sin.”  

As this section is long, I will again break it into chunks and respond piecemeal.

1) "Innumerable instances of the same kind are to be found in the sacred books. But, to be brief, I will return to the last of the four classes of brethren, those, namely, who are brethren by affection, and these again fall into two divisions, those of the spiritual and those of the general relationship."

Of course, these "brethren by affection" in themselves have nothing to do with the Jews use of "brothers" and "sisters" to describe Jesus' family members.  Jerome is not wrong about this point, but it is a red herring.

Likewise, I once again take the opportunity to praise Jerome for his appeal to Scripture.

2) "I say spiritual because all of us Christians are called brethren, as in the verse, “Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity.” And in another psalm the Saviour says, “I will declare thy name unto my brethren.” And elsewhere, “Go unto my brethren and say to them.” I say also general, because we are all children of one Father, there is a like bond of brotherhood between us all. “Tell these who hate you,” says the prophet, “ye are our brethren.” And the Apostle writing to the Corinthians: “If any man that is named brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner: with such a one no, not to eat.”" 

Interestingly, I'm not sure whether "I will declare thy name unto my brethren" (Psalm 22:22) must be interpreted in a sense other than physical brothers in the ordinary sense.  Nevertheless, given the immediate parallel to the congregation in the next part of the same verse, I don't think this would be the most clear proof.

3) "I now ask to which class you consider the Lord’s brethren in the Gospel must be assigned. They are brethren by nature, you say." 

Yes and no.  Yes, they are brothers of the same mother.  No, they are not full biological siblings, because Joseph is only Jesus' father adoptively and presumptively, not biologically, as Scripture makes exceedingly clear.

4) "But Scripture does not say so; it calls them neither sons of Mary, nor of Joseph."

Even setting aside the verses that mention a Mary, the mother of James and Joses, still Scripture does present them as the family of Jesus in verses that mention Joseph and Mary.  If we set aside the disputed verses about Mary, there are no others that explicitly use the phrase "son of Joseph" or the like.  Nevertheless, these brothers accompany Mary in many places in the gospels.

5) "Shall we say they are brethren by race? But it is absurd to suppose that a few Jews were called His brethren when all Jews of the time might upon this principle have borne the title."

Agreed that such an option is absurd.

6) "Were they brethren by virtue of close intimacy and the union of heart and mind? If that were so, who were more truly His brethren than the apostles who received His private instruction and were called by Him His mother and His brethren? Again, if all men, as such, were His brethren, it would have been foolish to deliver a special message, “Behold, thy brethren seek thee,” for all men alike were entitled to the name." 

Agreed as well that this is not a legitimate option.

7) "The only alternative is to adopt the previous explanation and understand them to be called brethren in virtue of the bond of kindred, not of love and sympathy, nor by prerogative of race, nor yet by nature. Just as Lot was called Abraham’s brother, and Jacob Laban’s, just as the daughters of Zelophehad received a lot among their brethren, just as Abraham himself had to wife Sarah his sister, for he says, “She is indeed my sister, on the father’s side, not on the mother’s,” that is to say, she was the daughter of his brother, not of his sister. Otherwise, what are we to say of Abraham, a just man, taking to wife the daughter of his own father? Scripture, in relating the history of the men of early times, does not outrage our ears by speaking of the enormity in express terms, but prefers to leave it to be inferred by the reader: and God afterwards gives to the prohibition the sanction of the law, and threatens, “He who takes his sister, born of his father, or of his mother, and beholds her nakedness, hath commited abomination, he shall be utterly destroyed. He hath uncovered his sister’s nakedness, he shall bear his sin.”

Interestingly, we do indeed think that Abraham's wife Sarah was his half-sister.  But nevertheless, while this broader sense of "brother" or "sister" as referring to cousins is not automatically ruled out in the same way as the other two, it is still (a) subject to the same "Scripture does not say so" argument and (b) less well supported by the context. 

-TurretinFan

Response to Jerome's Response to Helvidius - Part 16

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

Jerome wrote:

Now here we have the explanation of what I am endeavouring to show, how it is that the sons of Mary, the sister of our Lord’s mother, who though not formerly believers afterwards did believe, can be called brethren of the Lord. Possibly the case might be that one of the brethren believed immediately while the others did not believe until long after, and that one Mary was the mother of James and Joses, namely, “Mary of Clopas,” who is the same as the wife of Alphæus, the other, the mother of James the less. In any case, if she (the latter) had been the Lord’s mother S. John would have allowed her the title, as everywhere else, and would not by calling her the mother of other sons have given a wrong impression. But at this stage I do not wish to argue for or against the supposition that Mary the wife of Clopas and Mary the mother of James and Joses were different women, provided it is clearly understood that Mary the mother of James and Joses was not the same person as the Lord’s mother. How then, says Helvidius, do you make out that they were called the Lord’s brethren who were not his brethren? I will show how that is. In Holy Scripture there are four kinds of brethren—by nature, race, kindred, love. Instances of brethren by nature are Esau and Jacob, the twelve patriarchs, Andrew and Peter, James and John. As to race, all Jews are called brethren of one another, as in Deuteronomy, “If thy brother, an Hebrew man, or an Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee, and serve thee six years; then in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free from thee.” And in the same book, “Thou shalt in anywise set him king over thee, whom the Lord thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee; thou mayest not put a foreigner over thee, which is not thy brother.” And again, “Thou shalt not see thy brother’s ox or his sheep go astray, and hide thyself from them: thou shalt surely bring them again unto thy brother. And if thy brother be not nigh unto thee, or if thou know him not, then thou shalt bring it home to thine house, and it shall be with thee until thy brother seek after it, and thou shalt restore it to him again.” And the Apostle Paul says, “I could wish that I myself were anathema from Christ for my brethren’s sake, my kinsmen according to the flesh: who are Israelites.” Moreover they are called brethren by kindred who are of one family, that is πατρία, which corresponds to the Latin paternitas, because from a single root a numerous progeny proceeds. In Genesis we read, “And Abram said unto Lot, Let there be no strife, I pray thee, between me and thee, and between my herdmen and thy herdmen; for we are brethren.” And again, “So Lot chose him all the plain of Jordan, and Lot journeyed east: and they separated each from his brother.” Certainly Lot was not Abraham’s brother, but the son of Abraham’s brother Aram. For Terah begat Abraham and Nahor and Aram: and Aram begat Lot. Again we read, “And Abram was seventy and five years old when he departed out of Haran. And Abram took Sarai his wife, and Lot his brother’s son.” But if you still doubt whether a nephew can be called a son, let me give you an instance. “And when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive, he led forth his trained men, born in his house, three hundred and eighteen.” And after describing the night attack and the slaughter, he adds, “And he brought back all the goods, and also brought again his brother Lot.” Let this suffice by way of proof of my assertion. But for fear you may make some cavilling objection, and wriggle out of your difficulty like a snake, I must bind you fast with the bonds of proof to stop your hissing and complaining, for I know you would like to say you have been overcome not so much by Scripture truth as by intricate arguments. Jacob, the son of Isaac and Rebecca, when in fear of his brother’s treachery he had gone to Mesopotamia, drew nigh and rolled away the stone from the mouth of the well, and watered the flocks of Laban, his mother’s brother. “And Jacob kissed Rachel, and lifted up his voice, and wept. And Jacob told Rachel that he was her father’s brother, and that he was Rebekah’s son.” Here is an example of the rule already referred to, by which a nephew is called a brother. And again, “Laban said unto Jacob. Because thou art my brother, shouldest thou therefore serve me for nought? Tell me what shall thy wages be.” And so, when, at the end of twenty years, without the knowledge of his father-in-law and accompanied by his wives and sons he was returning to his country, on Laban overtaking him in the mountain of Gilead and failing to find the idols which Rachel hid among the baggage, Jacob answered and said to Laban, “What is my trespass? What is my sin, that thou hast so hotly pursued after me? Whereas thou hast felt all about my stuff, what hast thou found of all thy household stuff? Set it here before my brethren and thy brethren, that they may judge betwixt us two.” Tell me who are those brothers of Jacob and Laban who were present there? Esau, Jacob’s brother, was certainly not there, and Laban, the son of Bethuel, had no brothers although he had a sister Rebecca.  

As this section is long, I will again break it into chunks and respond piecemeal.

1) "Now here we have the explanation of what I am endeavouring to show, how it is that the sons of Mary, the sister of our Lord’s mother, who though not formerly believers afterwards did believe, can be called brethren of the Lord." 

This would seem to make Mary's parents the least creative on the planet, if they had two surviving daughters each named Mary.  Jerome is clearly reading John 19:25 with "Mary the wife of Cleophas" being an appositive for Mary's sister, as it is presented in the King James Version.

John 19:25 "Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene."

Of course, Mary's "sister" can be her husband's sister, or her brother's wife, or her female cousin, or the like.

2) "Possibly the case might be that one of the brethren believed immediately while the others did not believe until long after, and that one Mary was the mother of James and Joses, namely, “Mary of Clopas,” who is the same as the wife of Alphæus, the other, the mother of James the less."

This is just pure speculation, and would give this Mary now three designations.  It is not impossible, of course, but is there any good reason to think it? Helvidius' explanation is even more probable.

3) "In any case, if she (the latter) had been the Lord’s mother S. John would have allowed her the title, as everywhere else, and would not by calling her the mother of other sons have given a wrong impression."

Jerome's rules for John are curious.  John never calls Mary by the name, Mary.   Most of the references to Mary in John's gospel are clearly to Mary the sister of Lazarus and Martha (John 11:1, 2, 19, 20, 28, 31, 32, and 45; John 12:3).  If Mary Magdalene is the same Mary, then the only other woman who is called Mary in John's gospel is this "Mary the wife of Cleophas."

Jesus' mother is elsewhere described in John's gospel usually as "the mother of Jesus" or the like, without naming her.  In fact, if one only had the Gospel of John, one would not know Mary's name.

Moreover, the verses that call Mary the mother of James and Joses are in the other gospels, not in John.

4) "But at this stage I do not wish to argue for or against the supposition that Mary the wife of Clopas and Mary the mother of James and Joses were different women, provided it is clearly understood that Mary the mother of James and Joses was not the same person as the Lord’s mother." 

It is clear that Mary, the wife of Clopas, is not the mother of Jesus.  The problem for Jerome, though, is that it is hard to establish that this woman is the mother of James and Joses.

5) "How then, says Helvidius, do you make out that they were called the Lord’s brethren who were not his brethren? I will show how that is." 

Helvidius' rhetoric is weak, but his point is valid.  The farther these men are from being sons of Jesus' mother, the weaker Jerome's claim.

6) "In Holy Scripture there are four kinds of brethren—by nature, race, kindred, love." 

No one should doubt that there are multiple uses of "brother" in Scripture.  On the other hand, the most usual way when describing families is to speak of brothers who are of the same mother and/or father.

7) "Instances of brethren by nature are Esau and Jacob, the twelve patriarchs, Andrew and Peter, James and John." 

Yes, and this is the kind of context in which James, Joses, and the others are called Jesus' brothers.  They are called this in the context of mentioning Jesus' presumptive parents, Mary and Joseph.

8) "As to race, all Jews are called brethren of one another, as in Deuteronomy, “If thy brother, an Hebrew man, or an Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee, and serve thee six years; then in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free from thee.” And in the same book, “Thou shalt in anywise set him king over thee, whom the Lord thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee; thou mayest not put a foreigner over thee, which is not thy brother.” And again, “Thou shalt not see thy brother’s ox or his sheep go astray, and hide thyself from them: thou shalt surely bring them again unto thy brother. And if thy brother be not nigh unto thee, or if thou know him not, then thou shalt bring it home to thine house, and it shall be with thee until thy brother seek after it, and thou shalt restore it to him again.” And the Apostle Paul says, “I could wish that I myself were anathema from Christ for my brethren’s sake, my kinsmen according to the flesh: who are Israelites.”"

We readily grant that this usage exists, but it was not in that sense that James, Joses, and the rest were identified as brothers of Jesus. The point of the mention of those siblings was that the people knew Jesus and his immediate family, not merely other members of the tribe of Judah.

9) "Moreover they are called brethren by kindred who are of one family, that is πατρία, which corresponds to the Latin paternitas, because from a single root a numerous progeny proceeds. In Genesis we read, “And Abram said unto Lot, Let there be no strife, I pray thee, between me and thee, and between my herdmen and thy herdmen; for we are brethren.” And again, “So Lot chose him all the plain of Jordan, and Lot journeyed east: and they separated each from his brother.” Certainly Lot was not Abraham’s brother, but the son of Abraham’s brother Aram. For Terah begat Abraham and Nahor and Aram: and Aram begat Lot. Again we read, “And Abram was seventy and five years old when he departed out of Haran. And Abram took Sarai his wife, and Lot his brother’s son.” But if you still doubt whether a nephew can be called a son, let me give you an instance. “And when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive, he led forth his trained men, born in his house, three hundred and eighteen.” And after describing the night attack and the slaughter, he adds, “And he brought back all the goods, and also brought again his brother Lot.” Let this suffice by way of proof of my assertion."

Pre-Mosaic usage of "brother" (in Hebrew and literally translated to Greek or Latin) is hardly a very compelling antecedent to the usage in Greek by the evangelists.  That said, we should acknowledge that the word can be used in that broader sense, which is still less broad than the "all Jews" sense.  There is no particular reason to think that the Jews of Jesus' home town were using "brother" and "sister" in the sense described.

10) "But for fear you may make some cavilling objection, and wriggle out of your difficulty like a snake, I must bind you fast with the bonds of proof to stop your hissing and complaining, for I know you would like to say you have been overcome not so much by Scripture truth as by intricate arguments." 

Lovely rhetoric, and notice again Jerome's appeal to the authority of Scripture, and his acknowledgment of its superiority to crafty arguments.

11) "Jacob, the son of Isaac and Rebecca, when in fear of his brother’s treachery he had gone to Mesopotamia, drew nigh and rolled away the stone from the mouth of the well, and watered the flocks of Laban, his mother’s brother. “And Jacob kissed Rachel, and lifted up his voice, and wept. And Jacob told Rachel that he was her father’s brother, and that he was Rebekah’s son.” Here is an example of the rule already referred to, by which a nephew is called a brother. And again, “Laban said unto Jacob. Because thou art my brother, shouldest thou therefore serve me for nought? Tell me what shall thy wages be.” And so, when, at the end of twenty years, without the knowledge of his father-in-law and accompanied by his wives and sons he was returning to his country, on Laban overtaking him in the mountain of Gilead and failing to find the idols which Rachel hid among the baggage, Jacob answered and said to Laban, “What is my trespass? What is my sin, that thou hast so hotly pursued after me? Whereas thou hast felt all about my stuff, what hast thou found of all thy household stuff? Set it here before my brethren and thy brethren, that they may judge betwixt us two.” Tell me who are those brothers of Jacob and Laban who were present there? Esau, Jacob’s brother, was certainly not there, and Laban, the son of Bethuel, had no brothers although he had a sister Rebecca."

Again, Jerome is having to go back to pre-Mosaic usage in another language to justify a broader sense of brother.  It is true, of course.  It simply does not pin down or even much suggest that the brothers of Jesus were not sons of his mother.

-TurretinFan

Response to Jerome's Response to Helvidius - Part 15

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

Jerome wrote:

What darkness, what raging madness rushing to its own destruction! You say that the mother of the Lord was present at the cross, you say that she was entrusted to the disciple John on account of her widowhood and solitary condition: as if upon your own showing, she had not four sons, and numerous daughters, with whose solace she might comfort herself? You also apply to her the name of widow which is not found in Scripture. And although you quote all instances in the Gospels, the words of John alone displease you. You say in passing that she was present at the cross, that you may not appear to have omitted it on purpose, and yet not a word about the women who were with her. I could pardon you if you were ignorant, but I see you have a reason for your silence. Let me point out then what John says, “But there were standing by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.” No one doubts that there were two apostles called by the name James, James the son of Zebedee, and James the son of Alphæus. Do you intend the comparatively unknown James the less, who is called in Scripture the son of Mary, not however of Mary the mother of our Lord, to be an apostle, or not? If he is an apostle, he must be the son of Alphæus and a believer in Jesus, “For neither did his brethren believe in him.” If he is not an apostle, but a third James (who he can be I cannot tell), how can he be regarded as the Lord’s brother, and how, being a third, can he be called less to distinguish him from greater, when greater and less are used to denote the relations existing, not between three, but between two? Notice, moreover, that the Lord’s brother is an apostle, since Paul says, “Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and tarried with him fifteen days. But other of the Apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother.” And in the same Epistle, “And when they perceived the grace that was given unto me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars,” etc. And that you may not suppose this James to be the son of Zebedee, you have only to read the Acts of the Apostles, and you will find that the latter had already been slain by Herod. The only conclusion is that the Mary who is described as the mother of James the less was the wife of Alphæus and sister of Mary the Lord’s mother, the one who is called by John the Evangelist “Mary of Clopas,” whether after her father, or kindred, or for some other reason. But if you think they are two persons because elsewhere we read, “Mary the mother of James the less,” and here, “Mary of Clopas,” you have still to learn that it is customary in Scripture for the same individual to bear different names. Raguel, Moses’ father-in-law, is also called Jethro. Gedeon, without any apparent reason for the change, all at once becomes Jerubbaal. Ozias, king of Judah, has an alternative, Azarias. Mount Tabor is called Itabyrium. Again Hermon is called by the Phenicians Sanior, and by the Amorites Sanir. The same tract of country is known by three names, Negebh, Teman, and Darom in Ezekiel. Peter is also called Simon and Cephas. Judas the zealot in another Gospel is called Thaddaeus. And there are numerous other examples which the reader will be able to collect for himself from every part of Scripture.  

On this point, verbosely proven, we have lost the main force of the argument. The main issue is that Scripture plainly speaks of Jesus having brothers, and naming those brothers.  Because in two places where the brothers are named, the naming comes from unbelieving Jews, Helvidius seems to have attempt to bolster his argument by reference to places where we would expect to see Mary the Mother of Jesus.

Thus, Jerome has gotten sidetracked over the issue of: 

Mat 27:56 Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee's children.

Mark 15:40 There were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome;

Mark 15:47 And Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses beheld where he was laid.

Mark 16:1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.

Luke 24:10 It was Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women that were with them, which told these things unto the apostles.

John 19:25 Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.

Coming back to the argument, let's break it down in more detail:

1) "You say that the mother of the Lord was present at the cross, you say that she was entrusted to the disciple John on account of her widowhood and solitary condition: as if upon your own showing, she had not four sons, and numerous daughters, with whose solace she might comfort herself?"

These sons and daughters, however, were younger than Jesus.  Moreover, as noted elsewhere, as yet they did not believe on Jesus.  So, it was natural for Jesus to entrust the care of his mother to a fully grown believer.

2) "You also apply to her the name of widow which is not found in Scripture."

One has to admire this point by Jerome.  While we suspect that Mary was a widow by this time (because the last mention of Joseph being alive is when Jesus was twelve), it is true that we do not know: Scripture does not say.  Jerome is right to appeal to Scripture, but it is that same Scripture that does not give Mary the title of Perpetual Virgin, but rather wife of Joseph.

3) "And although you quote all instances in the Gospels, the words of John alone displease you." 

Jerome is right to criticize a cherry-picking hermeneutical method.  Whether he is right in his criticism, we will consider more closely.

4) "You say in passing that she was present at the cross, that you may not appear to have omitted it on purpose, and yet not a word about the women who were with her. I could pardon you if you were ignorant, but I see you have a reason for your silence."

This is a beautiful rhetorical flourish.  If indeed Helvidius has omitted something, Jerome is right to point it out!

5) "Let me point out then what John says, “But there were standing by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.” 

I don't wish to spoil the beauty of Jerome's rhetoric, but for clarity to the reader, you can understand that Jerome is going to argue that Mary the wife of Clopas is the mother of James and Joses.

6) "No one doubts that there were two apostles called by the name James, James the son of Zebedee, and James the son of Alphæus. Do you intend the comparatively unknown James the less, who is called in Scripture the son of Mary, not however of Mary the mother of our Lord, to be an apostle, or not? If he is an apostle, he must be the son of Alphæus and a believer in Jesus, “For neither did his brethren believe in him.” If he is not an apostle, but a third James (who he can be I cannot tell), how can he be regarded as the Lord’s brother, and how, being a third, can he be called less to distinguish him from greater, when greater and less are used to denote the relations existing, not between three, but between two?"

Matthew 10:3

Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus;

Mark 3:18

And Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and Simon the Canaanite,

Luke 6:15

Matthew and Thomas, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon called Zelotes,

Acts 1:13

And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James.

So, James the son of Alphaeus is definitely one of the two apostles with that name.

Jerome's argument takes "James the less," in Mark 15:40 to be the same as James the son of Alphaeus.  The reasoning is that "less" is a comparative of two.  This argument works great in English (and I suppose also in the Latin from which Jerome was working), but μικροῦ in Greek can mean "least" as well as it can mean "less."  Moreover, we simply don't know why that James is called James the Less.  It can be a reference to being a child, for example (Matthew 10:42, Matthew 18:10, and Matthew 18:14 use a form of the word to refer to children) or to someone being short (Zachaeus is called by this term in Luke 19:3).  In Mark, the evangelist that calls James, James the less, the term is used of mustard seed (Mark 4:31) and of children (Mark 9:42).  In short (pun noticed though not initially intended), the argument that there can only be two, if James is "James the Less," fails.  He could be James the kid, or James the short, or James the younger.  Moreover, there is nothing from the context in Mark 15:40 that tells us that the James mentioned is an apostle.

Moreover, no James in Scripture is called "James the Greater" or even "James the Great."  So, if this is to be taken as a concrete comparison, there is no greater James identified.  Indeed, he may just be younger than his brother Joses, although it is not clear why Mark would want to convey that information.

The solution for Helvidius' theory is that this "James the Less," the son of Mary, is the same as James the brother of the Lord.  His being little (either in terms of stature or age) would explain why Mary needed John in Jesus' absence.  

7) "Notice, moreover, that the Lord’s brother is an apostle, since Paul says, “Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and tarried with him fifteen days. But other of the Apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother.” And in the same Epistle, “And when they perceived the grace that was given unto me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars,” etc. And that you may not suppose this James to be the son of Zebedee, you have only to read the Acts of the Apostles, and you will find that the latter had already been slain by Herod."

In Jerome's haste, he seems to contradict himself here.  At our number 6 above, Jerome had pointed out that Jesus' brothers did not believe.  Yet at our number 7, Jerome insists that the brother of our Lord was an apostle.  There is a way that both things can be the case: James, the brother of the Lord, may not have been one of the twelve (nor one of the seventy), but he may have been sent as an apostle in a lesser sense, perhaps after his conversion after Jesus' resurrection or ascension.

8) "The only conclusion is that the Mary who is described as the mother of James the less was the wife of Alphæus and sister of Mary the Lord’s mother, the one who is called by John the Evangelist “Mary of Clopas,” whether after her father, or kindred, or for some other reason. But if you think they are two persons because elsewhere we read, “Mary the mother of James the less,” and here, “Mary of Clopas,” you have still to learn that it is customary in Scripture for the same individual to bear different names. Raguel, Moses’ father-in-law, is also called Jethro. Gedeon, without any apparent reason for the change, all at once becomes Jerubbaal. Ozias, king of Judah, has an alternative, Azarias. Mount Tabor is called Itabyrium. Again Hermon is called by the Phenicians Sanior, and by the Amorites Sanir. The same tract of country is known by three names, Negebh, Teman, and Darom in Ezekiel. Peter is also called Simon and Cephas. Judas the zealot in another Gospel is called Thaddaeus. And there are numerous other examples which the reader will be able to collect for himself from every part of Scripture.  "

Jerome's argument, as I best understand it, is that the Mary, mother of James, is also Mary of Clopas.  There were a lot of women with the name, Mary.  So, one should not assume they are all Jesus' mother.  Likewise, as Jerome points out, some people are given multiple names in Scripture.  Moreover, Helvidius' argument faces this same problem as Jerome, in that Mary the Mother of Jesus is not usually called the mother of James and Joses.  Of course, the solution is the same, namely that more than one name can be given to the same person.

-TurretinFan