Response to Jerome's Response to Helvidius - Part 13

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

Jerome wrote:

The last proposition of Helvidius was this, and it is what he wished to show when he treated of the first-born, that brethren of the Lord are mentioned in the Gospels. For example, “Behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, seeking to speak to him.” And elsewhere, “After this he went down to Capernaum, he, and his mother, and his brethren.” And again, “His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judæa, that thy disciples also may behold the works which thou doest. For no man doeth anything in secret, and himself seeketh to be known openly. If thou doest these things, manifest thyself to the world.” And John adds, “For even his brethren did not believe on him.” Mark also and Matthew, “And coming into his own country he taught them in their synagogues, insomuch that they were astonished, and said, Whence hath this man this wisdom, and mighty works? 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?” Luke also in the Acts of the Apostles relates, “These all with one accord continued stedfastly in prayer, with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.” Paul the Apostle also is at one with them, and witnesses to their historical accuracy, “And I went up by revelation, but other of the apostles saw I none, save Peter and James the Lord’s brother.” And again in another place, “Have we no right to eat and drink? Have we no right to lead about wives even as the rest of the Apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?” And for fear any one should not allow the evidence of the Jews, since it was they from whose mouth we hear the name of His brothers, but should maintain that His countrymen were deceived by the same error in respect of the brothers into which they fell in their belief about the father, Helvidius utters a sharp note of warning and cries, “The same names are repeated by the Evangelists in another place, and the same persons are there brethren of the Lord and sons of Mary.” Matthew says, “And many women were there (doubtless at the Lord’s cross) beholding from afar, which had followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering unto him: among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.” Mark also, “And there were also women beholding from afar, among whom were both Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome”; and in the same place shortly after, “And many other women which came up with him unto Jerusalem.” Luke too, “Now there were Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and the other women with them.”

By and large, this seems like the best starting place for the argument, not the final point.  After all, it is this issue that makes the others seem less significant.  Helvidius apparently omitted Paul, but the bottom line is that Scripture affirms multiple times that Jesus had brothers and sisters, and at least some of Jesus' brothers are even named.

  

-TurretinFan

Response to Jerome's Response to Helvidius - Part 12

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

Jerome wrote:

Our position is this: Every only begotten son is a first-born son, but not every first-born is an only begotten. By first-born we understand not only one who is succeeded by others, but one who has had no predecessor. “Everything,” says the Lord to Aaron, “that openeth the womb of all flesh which they offer unto the Lord, both of man and beast, shall be thine: nevertheless the first born of man shalt thou surely redeem, and the firstling of unclean beasts shalt thou redeem.” The word of God defines first-born as everything that openeth the womb. Otherwise, if the title belongs to such only as have younger brothers, the priests cannot claim the firstlings until their successors have been begotten, lest, perchance, in case there were no subsequent delivery it should prove to be the first-born but not merely the only begotten. “And those that are to be redeemed of them from a month old shalt thou redeem, according to thine estimation for the money of five shekels, after the shekel of the sanctuary (the same is twenty gerahs). But the firstling of an ox, or the firstling of a sheep, or the firstling of a goat, thou shalt not redeem; they are holy.” The word of God compels me to dedicate to God everything that openeth the womb if it be the firstling of clean beasts: if of unclean beasts, I must redeem it, and give the value to the priest. I might reply and say, Why do you tie me down to the short space of a month? Why do you speak of the first-born, when I cannot tell whether there are brothers to follow? Wait until the second is born. I owe nothing to the priest, unless the birth of a second should make the one I previously had the first-born. Will not the very points of the letters cry out against me and convict me of my folly, and declare that first-born is a title of him who opens the womb, and is not to be restricted to him who has brothers? And, then, to take the case of John: we are agreed that he was an only begotten son: I want to know if he was not also a first-born son, and whether he was not absolutely amenable to the law. There can be no doubt in the matter. At all events Scripture thus speaks of the Saviour, “And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were fulfilled, they brought him up to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord (as it is written in the law of the Lord, every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord) and to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, a pair of turtle-doves, or two young pigeons.” If this law relates only to the first-born, and there can be no first-born unless there are successors, no one ought to be bound by the law of the first-born who cannot tell whether there will be successors. But inasmuch as he who has no younger brothers is bound by the law of the first-born, we gather that he is called the first-born who opens the womb and who has been preceded by none, not he whose birth is followed by that of a younger brother. Moses writes in Exodus, “And it came to pass at midnight, that the Lord smote all the first-born in the land of Egypt, from the first-born of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the first-born of the captive that was in the dungeon: And all the first-born of cattle.” Tell me, were they who then perished by the destroyer, only your first-born, or, something more, did they include the only begotten? If only they who have brothers are called first-born, the only begotten were saved from death. And if it be the fact that the only begotten were slain, it was contrary to the sentence pronounced, for the only begotten to die as well as the first-born. You must either release the only begotten from the penalty, and in that case you become ridiculous: or, if you allow that they were slain, we gain our point, though we have not to thank you for it, that only begotten sons also are called first-born.

We don't disagree with Jerome's long-winded explanation of this point.  However, as mentioned in the previous post, Jerome does not seem to realize that it is valuable for the evangelists to mention Jesus' status as firstborn because it was known that he had brothers and sisters.

Matthew 1:25

And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

Luke 2:7

And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.

We acknowledge that the term can be used of an only child, but it is one of many Scriptural evidences, not in itself an absolute proof.  Moreover, since we believe that the gospel was written after Jesus was 30 years old, it would have been more natural for the evangelist to refer to Jesus as her only son, if the evangelist wished to clarify his relationship to Mary.

I should point out, however, that in addition to the points raised above and in the previous post, Jesus' position as firstborn was also significant for his being David's heir to the throne.  If, as some have argued, Joseph had other boys before Jesus, Jesus would not have been Joseph's presumed firstborn.  Accordingly, he would not have inherited the throne of David from his father.

  

-TurretinFan

Response to Jerome's Response to Helvidius - Part 11

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

Jerome wrote:

An ample reply has now been given to what he advanced respecting the words before they came together, and he knew her not till she had brought forth a son. I must now proceed, if my reply is to follow the order of his argument, to the third point. He will have it that Mary bore other sons, and he quotes the passage, “And Joseph also went up to the city of David to enroll himself with Mary, who was betrothed to him, being great with child. And it came to pass, while they were there, the days were fulfilled that she should be delivered, and she brought forth her first-born son.” From this he endeavours to show that the term first-born is inapplicable except to a person who has brothers, just as he is called only begotten who is the only son of his parents.

Jerome does not seem to realize that it is valuable for the evangelists to mention Jesus' status as firstborn because it was known that he had brothers and sisters.

Matthew 1:25

And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

Luke 2:7

And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.

We acknowledge that the term can be used of an only child, but it is one of many Scriptural evidences, not in itself an absolute proof.  Instead, we should consider the context of the comment, in an account written after Jesus had well-known brothers and sisters.  

-TurretinFan

Response to Jerome's Response to Helvidius - Part 10

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

Jerome wrote:

If you are so contentious, your own thoughts shall now prove your master. You must not allow any time to intervene between delivery and intercourse. You must not say, “If a woman conceive seed and bear a man child, then she shall be unclean seven days; as in the days of the separation of her sickness shall she be unclean. And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. And she shall continue in the blood of her purifying three and thirty days. She shall touch no hallowed thing,” and so forth. On your showing, Joseph must at once approach, her, and be subject to Jeremiah’s reproof, “They were as mad horses in respect of women: every one neighed after his neighbour’s wife.” Otherwise, how can the words stand good, “he knew her not, till she had brought forth a son,” if he waits after the time of another purifying has expired, if his lust must brook another long delay of forty days? The mother must go unpurged from her child-bed taint, and the wailing infant be attended to by the midwives, while the husband clasps his exhausted wife. Thus for sooth must their married life begin so that the Evangelist may not be convicted of falsehood. But God forbid that we should think thus of the Saviour’s mother and of a just man. No midwife assisted at His birth; no women’s officiousness intervened. With her own hands she wrapped Him in the swaddling clothes, herself both mother and midwife, “and laid Him,” we are told, “in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn”; a statement which, on the one hand, refutes the ravings of the apocryphal accounts, for Mary herself wrapped Him in the swaddling clothes, and on the other makes the voluptuous notion of Helvidius impossible, since there was no place suitable for married intercourse in the inn.

As mentioned in my previous post, we ought to assume that Joseph knew his wife after Jesus' birth.  That does not imply that with mathematical precision, Joseph began making love the same moment that the placenta of Christ left Mary.  On the contrary, I think it is better to say that such knowledge began either in Egypt or upon their return to Nazareth, in either case after the days of Mary's purification were complete.

I think Jerome makes a good point about the absence of a midwife.  This point, incidentally, rebukes the fantastical account in the heretical forgery, known as the Protoevangelium of James.  It's hard to say how it relates to Helvidius, since Jerome does not provide Helvidius' argument here.  Presumably, Jerome is suggesting that someone else would have needed to watch Jesus while Joseph and Mary made love, and that there was no one else, not even a midwife.

As noted above, it's sufficient to say that they may have made Jesus' brethren and sisters upon their return to Nazareth, or perhaps even in Egypt.  

Nevertheless, it's not hard to tell that Jerome is out of familiar water when he comes to speculating on places where married people can become one flesh, or the contexts in which that can happen.  I doubt Mary was in any mood for it, and God's law regarding seems to forbid it, but to say it is "impossible" is to demonstrate one's lack of experiential familiarity with human heterosexual activity.  To put it differently, this is not a comment one would expect from Augustine. 

  

-TurretinFan

Response to Jerome's Response to Helvidius - Part 9

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

Jerome wrote:

Helvidius will answer, “What you say, is in my opinion mere trifling. Your arguments are so much waste of time, and the discussion shows more subtlety than truth. Why could not Scripture say, as it said of Thamar and Judah, ‘And he took his wife, and knew her again no more’? Could not Matthew find words to express his meaning? ‘He knew her not,’ he says, ‘until she brought forth a son.’ He did then, after her delivery, know her, whom he had refrained from knowing until she was delivered.”

If Helvidius did not think of this argument himself, I must praise Jerome for providing an excellent example of what has recently come to be called a steel man argument.  This is indeed correct.  It would not have been hard for the Evangelist to write that Joseph took his wife, but never knew her, or that Mary remained a virgin, or the like, if the Holy Spirit had wished us to think that.

Moreover, had the Holy Spirit intended to convey the perpetual virginity with such a statement, one would expect the Holy Spirit to elsewhere clarify that the brothers and sisters were not actually sons and daughters of Mary.

Of course, the word of caution here is that we cannot dictate to the Holy Spirit how the Holy Spirit expresses himself.  Just because a statement could be made more clearly, we cannot demand that the Holy Spirit do so.

In this case, however, the plain meaning of the words is simply that the Joseph abstained from knowing his wife until Jesus was born.  The implication, therefore, is that Joseph began to know Mary after Jesus was born, though presumably also after the time of purification set forth in the law of Moses and described in Luke.

  

-TurretinFan

Response to Jerome's Response to Helvidius - Part 8

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

Jerome wrote:

In short, what I want to know is why Joseph refrained until the day of her delivery? Helvidius will of course reply, because he heard the angel say, “that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.” And in turn we rejoin that he had certainly heard him say, “Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife.” The reason why he was forbidden to forsake his wife was that he might not think her an adulteress. Is it true then, that he was ordered not to have intercourse with his wife? Is it not plain that the warning was given him that he might not be separated from her? And could the just man dare, he says, to think of approaching her, when he heard that the Son of God was in her womb? Excellent! We are to believe then that the same man who gave so much credit to a dream that he did not dare to touch his wife, yet afterwards, when he had learnt from the shepherds that the angel of the Lord had come from heaven and said to them, “Be not afraid: for behold I bring you good tidings of great joy which shall be to all people, for there is born to you this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord;” and when the heavenly host had joined with him in the chorus “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among men of good will;” and when he had seen just Simeon embrace the infant and exclaim, “Now lettest thou thy servant depart, O Lord, according to thy word in peace: for mine eyes have seen thy salvation;” and when he had seen Anna the prophetess, the Magi, the Star, Herod, the angels; Helvidius, I say, would have us believe that Joseph, though well acquainted with such surprising wonders, dared to touch the temple of God, the abode of the Holy Ghost, the mother of his Lord? Mary at all events “kept all these sayings in her heart.” You cannot for shame say Joseph did not know of them, for Luke tells us, “His father and mother were marvelling at the things which were spoken concerning Him.” And yet you with marvellous effrontery contend that the reading of the Greek manuscripts is corrupt, although it is that which nearly all the Greek writers have left us in their books, and not only so, but several of the Latin writers have taken the words the same way. Nor need we now consider the variations in the copies, since the whole record both of the Old and New Testament has since that time been translated into Latin, and we must believe that the water of the fountain flows purer than that of the stream.

Jerome is asking the right question about why it is told us that Joseph refrained.  The answer is to make it clear that Joseph did not father Jesus.  If Joseph had come together with Mary before Jesus' birth, people might speculate that Jesus was prematurely born but naturally conceived.  By instead waiting until after Jesus was born, Joseph made clear that Jesus' conception was entirely from above.

Jerome asks, "Is it true then, that he was ordered not to have intercourse with his wife?"  It's not clear where this came from.  To our knowledge, there was no such order.

Jerome continues, apparently quoting from Helvidius, "'And could the just man dare,' he says, 'to think of approaching her, when he heard that the Son of God was in her womb?' Excellent!"  This an interesting point.  I think my initial answer above is more correct, though one might fear to approach the Lord in such a manner, as Helvidius apparently argued.

Jerome's argument, however, that "Helvidius, I say, would have us believe that Joseph, though well acquainted with such surprising wonders, dared to touch the temple of God, the abode of the Holy Ghost, the mother of his Lord?"  Indeed, every woman who trusts in Christ is His Mother, according to Jesus, and is the temple of the Holy Ghost, according to Scripture.  Yet, godly men do not fear to approach their wives for this reason.  Such superstitious would contradict the clear teachings of Scripture.

Such sentimental arguments are easily turned on their head.  What Christian shuns pilgrimage to Jerusalem because Jesus was there?  What Christian fears to touch the stones on the temple mount where Jesus purified the temple?  When you hear that Jesus was a babe in a particular cave in Bethlehem, that only increases your desire to be there.

Paul teaches that we should not join ourselves to prostitutes because we are members of Christ's body.  However, this same reasoning only further insists that Joseph should join himself to his wife, because Joseph too is a members of Christ's body, and because God told Joseph to take Mary his wife.

Apparently, Helvidius made some kind of textual critical argument.  It's hard to tell what it was from Jerome's description: 

And yet you with marvellous effrontery contend that the reading of the Greek manuscripts is corrupt, although it is that which nearly all the Greek writers have left us in their books, and not only so, but several of the Latin writers have taken the words the same way. Nor need we now consider the variations in the copies, since the whole record both of the Old and New Testament has since that time been translated into Latin, and we must believe that the water of the fountain flows purer than that of the stream.

On its face, it looks like Jerome here is arguing for the superiority of the Latin over the Greek and Hebrew originals.  If that understanding of Jerome's words is correct, it reminds one of the King James Version advocates arguing that the English text is more pure than the Greek and Hebrew.  I suppose a different sense would be that he means that the Latin is very pure and must, therefore, have come from yet purer fountains when it was translated.

Frankly, either way (or perhaps some third and better way), it is interesting to note that Jerome began his re-translation of the Septuagint into Latin about three years after he wrote this work, and his re-translation of the New Testament shortly after that.

Looking at my critical Vulgate and my NA27, I don't see any major textual variants at Matthew 1:25, which Helvidius might have had in mind.  Perhaps some copies have "firstborn" mentioned in the verse, but even that should not make much difference to the argument.  I will not farther speculate on this point.

-TurretinFan

Response to Jerome's Response to Helvidius - Part 7

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

Jerome wrote:

The word of God says in Genesis, “And they gave unto Jacob all the strange gods which were in their hand, and the rings which were in their ears; and Jacob hid them under the oak which was by Shechem, and lost them until this day.” Likewise at the end of Deuteronomy, “So Moses the servant of the Lord died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of the Lord. And he buried him in the valley, in the land of Moab over against Beth-peor: but no man knoweth of his sepulchre unto this day.” We must certainly understand by this day the time of the composition of the history, whether you prefer the view that Moses was the author of the Pentateuch or that Ezra re-edited it. In either case I make no objection. The question now is whether the words unto this day are to be referred to the time of publishing or writing the books, and if so it is for him to show, now that so many years have rolled away since that day, that either the idols hidden beneath the oak have been found, or the grave of Moses discovered; for he obstinately maintains that what does not happen so long as the point of time indicated by until and unto has not been attained, begins to be when that point has been reached. He would do well to pay heed to the idiom of Holy Scripture, and understand with us, (it was here he stuck in the mud) that some things which might seem ambiguous if not expressed are plainly intimated, while others are left to the exercise of our intellect. For if, while the event was still fresh in memory and men were living who had seen Moses, it was possible for his grave to be unknown, much more may this be the case after the lapse of so many ages. And in the same way must we interpret what we are told concerning Joseph. The Evangelist pointed out a circumstance which might have given rise to some scandal, namely, that Mary was not known by her husband until she was delivered, and he did so that we might be the more certain that she from whom Joseph refrained while there was room to doubt the import of the vision was not known after her delivery.

Once again, we do not disagree with Jerome that "unto this day" is a statement that does not have the same kind of fixed termination as the usual statement.  Moreover, had the Evangelist written that Joseph did not know his wife, until this day, we would simply conclude that Joseph had not yet known Mary when the gospel was written.

As an aside, it is interesting to note that the question of whether the Pentateuch was re-edited later is already raised in Jerome's time.  As Jerome notes, it is not really salient to this issue, but it is an interesting question.

Jerome says "that some things which might seem ambiguous if not expressed are plainly intimated, while others are left to the exercise of our intellect." Unfortunately, Jerome draws the wrong conclusion.  For example, while Jerome points out some examples of cases where "unto this day" was a situation that probably continues even now, such as the lack of knowledge of Moses' sepulcher.  By contrast, Genesis 26:33 "And he called it Shebah: therefore the name of the city is Beersheba unto this day." or Genesis 35:20 "And Jacob set a pillar upon her grave: that is the pillar of Rachel's grave unto this day."  There is a city today named Beersheba, which is fairly close to where the city of Beersheba was.  However, if the name is ever changed, this would not negate Scripture.  And Scripture was not lying when for a time there was no city with that name.  Likewise, the pillar of Rachel's grave is gone, yet Scripture did not lie.

Instead, recall that there is a distinction between the counter-examples and the rule.  The rule is, "he did [x] until [the end of doing x]." The counter-examples so far are future, "he will do [x] until [forever, the end of the person's life, until the end of time, or some other indefinite or final future point]" and now present, "until this day" or the like.

Yet Scripture does not say that Joseph did not know Mary until his death, nor that Joseph will know now Mary until the second coming, nor that Joseph did not know Mary until this day.  Instead, a fixed termination for Joseph's abstinence is provided.  So, once again Jerome has observed an interesting grammatical point, but has not fully considered the grammatical consequences of his grammatical observation.

 

-TurretinFan

Response to Jerome's Response to Helvidius - Part 6

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

Jerome wrote:

Our reply is briefly this,—the words knew and till in the language of Holy Scripture are capable of a double meaning. As to the former, he himself gave us a dissertation to show that it must be referred to sexual intercourse, and no one doubts that it is often used of the knowledge of the understanding, as, for instance, “the boy Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem, and his parents knew it not.” Now we have to prove that just as in the one case he has followed the usage of Scripture, so with regard to the word till he is utterly refuted by the authority of the same Scripture, which often denotes by its use a fixed time (he himself told us so), frequently time without limitation, as when God by the mouth of the prophet says to certain persons, “Even to old age I am he.” Will He cease to be God when they have grown old? And the Saviour in the Gospel tells the Apostles, “Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.” Will the Lord then after the end of the world has come forsake His disciples, and at the very time when seated on twelve thrones they are to judge the twelve tribes of Israel will they be bereft of the company of their Lord? Again Paul the Apostle writing to the Corinthians says, “Christ the first-fruits, afterward they that are Christ’s, at his coming. Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father, when he shall have put down all rule, and all authority and power. For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.” Granted that the passage relates to our Lord’s human nature, we do not deny that the words are spoken of Him who endured the cross and is commanded to sit afterwards on the right hand. What does he mean then by saying, “for he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet”? Is the Lord to reign only until His enemies begin to be under His feet, and once they are under His feet will He cease to reign? Of course His reign will then commence in its fulness when His enemies begin to be under His feet. David also in the fourth Song of Ascents speaks thus, “Behold, as the eyes of servants look unto the hand of their master, as the eyes of a maiden unto the hand of her mistress, so our eyes look unto the Lord our God, until he have mercy upon us.” Will the prophet, then, look unto the Lord until he obtain mercy, and when mercy is obtained will he turn his eyes down to the ground? although elsewhere he says, “Mine eyes fail for thy salvation, and for the word of thy righteousness.” I could accumulate countless instances of this usage, and cover the verbosity of our assailant with a cloud of proofs; I shall, however, add only a few, and leave the reader to discover like ones for himself.

Jerome's point is valid inasmuch as it establishes that sometimes the endpoint specified by "till" is not the endpoint of the action described.  Jerome fails, however, to take this argument to the next step of analysis: if the expression sometimes indicates that the action ceases at the endpoint, and other times it does not, how can we tell the difference?

Notice we do not need to dispute the examples Jerome provides.  They are not truly counter-examples to Helvidius' or our argument.  Sometimes the "till" or "unto" is followed by a term that is equivalent until "forever," such as "unto old age" or "unto the end of the world."  However, these counter examples are what we usually describe by the adage, that the exceptions prove the rule.

The expression in the gospels is not like those examples.  It's unlike those examples in two ways: first, the endpoint is expressed generally as a very distant time point, such as the end of the world, the triumph of Christ over all his enemies, or old age.  Second, those statements are prospective: they point to some future time.  By contrast, the Evangelist points us back retrospectively.  It is not, "he shall not know her until ..." but "he knew her not until ...."  The former statements may -- even often do -- tell us nothing about the state after the terminus.  The former statements are - at least usually - providing an endpoint to the described action.

Eric Svendsen did a great job of providing an analysis of the Greek data, and providing categorizations of all the usage of Greek data.  As Svendsen pointed out, the examples where the meaning of specific Greek phrase used here is "until [and continuing]" or "until [with no reference to continuation or discontinuation]" are a tiny minority, namely seven examples.   However, these are all examples from the Septuagint, rather than being examples from Greek literature within a century or two of the composition of Matthew.

In short, there are ways to understand the difference between the exceptional cases and the rule.  The use of "till" here follows the rule, not the exception.  So, Jerome wasn't wrong in what he said, but in what he left unsaid.

 

-TurretinFan

Response to Jerome's Response to Helvidius - Part 5

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

Jerome wrote:

This, however, is a point which will find its proper place further on. We must now hasten to other matters. The passage for discussion now is, “And Joseph arose from his sleep, and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took unto him his wife and knew her not till she had brought forth a son, and he called his name Jesus.” Here, first of all, it is quite needless for our opponent to show so elaborately that the word know has reference to coition, rather than to intellectual apprehension: as though anyone denied it, or any person in his senses could ever imagine the folly which Helvidius takes pains to refute. Then he would teach us that the adverb till implies a fixed and definite time, and when that is fulfilled, he says the event takes place which previously did not take place, as in the case before us, “and knew her not till she had brought forth a son.” It is clear, says he, that she was known after she brought forth, and that that knowledge was only delayed by her engendering a son. To defend his position he piles up text upon text, waves his sword like a blind-folded gladiator, rattles his noisy tongue, and ends with wounding no one but himself. 

Helvidius may overprove his points, but he's not wrong.  Jerome has lovely rhetoric here, but Helvidius has correctly understood the meaning of the text.  Joseph waited to know Mary until after Jesus was born.  I obviously can't say whether anyone argued that to "know" Mary didn't mean what we all know it meant, and even Jerome admits, but it seems Helvidius must have proved this point at great length, as one could.

-TurretinFan

Response to Jerome's Response to Helvidius - Part 4e

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

Jerome wrote:

Lastly, excepting Joseph, and Elizabeth, and Mary herself, and some few others who, we may suppose, heard the truth from them, all considered Jesus to be the son of Joseph. And so far was this the case that even the Evangelists, expressing the prevailing opinion, which is the correct rule for a historian, call him the father of the Saviour, as, for instance, “And he (that is, Simeon) came in the Spirit into the temple: and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, that they might do concerning him after the custom of the law;” and elsewhere, “And his parents went every year to Jerusalem at the feast of the passover.” And afterwards, “And when they had fulfilled the days, as they were returning, the boy Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem; and his parents knew not of it.” Observe also what Mary herself, who had replied to Gabriel with the words, “How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?” says concerning Joseph, “Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I sought thee sorrowing.” We have not here, as many maintain, the utterance of Jews or of mockers. The Evangelists call Joseph father: Mary confesses he was father. Not (as I said before) that Joseph was really the father of the Saviour: but that, to preserve the reputation of Mary, he was regarded by all as his father, although, before he heard the admonition of the angel, “Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost,” he had thoughts of putting her away privily; which shows that he well knew that the child conceived was not his. But we have said enough, more with the aim of imparting instruction than of answering an opponent, to show why Joseph is called the father of our Lord, and why Mary is called Joseph’s wife. This also at once answers the question why certain persons are called his brethren. 

Jerome misses the point, though.  The fact that everyone thought Joseph was the father was because Joseph was Mary's husband: they lived together.  Joseph was not Jesus' biological father, but he was the husband of Jesus' mother, and he accepted Jesus as his son.  

The reason that "certain persons" were called Jesus' brothers is that they were Joseph and Mary's boys, and it was presumed that Jesus was also Joseph's boy. 

-TurretinFan

Response to Jerome's Response to Helvidius - Part 4d

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

Jerome wrote:

But if anyone feels a doubt as to why the Virgin conceived after she was betrothed rather than when she had no one betrothed to her, or, to use the Scripture phrase, no husband, let me explain that there were three reasons. First, that by the genealogy of Joseph, whose kinswoman Mary was, Mary’s origin might also be shown. Secondly, that she might not in accordance with the law of Moses be stoned as an adulteress. Thirdly, that in her flight to Egypt she might have some solace, though it was that of a guardian rather than a husband. For who at that time would have believed the Virgin’s word that she had conceived of the Holy Ghost, and that the angel Gabriel had come and announced the purpose of God? and would not all have given their opinion against her as an adulteress, like Susanna? for at the present day, now that the whole world has embraced the faith, the Jews argue that when Isaiah says, “Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son,” the Hebrew word denotes a young woman, not a virgin, that is to say, the word is Almah, not Bethulah, a position which, farther on, we shall dispute more in detail. 

As to Jerome's reasons, they fail for several reasons.  First, Mary's genealogy can (and was) shown by reference to her father Heli (Luke 3:23), as distinct from Joseph's father, Jacob (Matthew 1:16).  Second, a single woman who conceived outside of marriage was not guilty of adultery under the law of Moses (Deuteronomy 22:28).  Third, while it may indeed be true that Joseph cared for Mary in Egypt, it is not true that Joseph was merely a guardian and not a husband to Mary.  Moreover, if God merely needed a guardian for Mary, God could easily provide that without providing a husband.   For example, God could have supernaturally strengthened a woman for that task, or God could have sent an angel, or even a lion.

Moreover, there is some irony in Jerome's defense of the correct understanding of the Hebrew word.  Recall that Jerome tried to prove that "before they came together" didn't imply they came together, on the basis that sometimes the consequent act does not happen.  The same is true of the Hebrew word in Isaiah.  In context it means virgin, which is the usual implication of being a young woman, because it is to be a sign.  

-TurretinFan

Response to Jerome's Response to Helvidius - Part 4c

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

Jerome wrote:

And although we find it said to Joseph in a dream, “Fear not to take Mary thy wife”; and again, “Joseph arose from his sleep, and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took unto him his wife,” no one ought to be disturbed by this, as though, inasmuch as she is called wife, she ceases to be betrothed, for we know it is usual in Scripture to give the title to those who are betrothed. The following evidence from Deuteronomy establishes the point. “If the man,” says the writer, “find the damsel that is betrothed in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her, he shall surely die, because he hath humbled his neighbour’s wife.” And in another place, “If there be a damsel that is a virgin betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour’s wife: so thou shalt put away the evil from the midst of thee.” Elsewhere also, “And what man is there that hath betrothed a wife, and hath not taken her? let him go and return unto his house, lest he die in the battle, and another man take her.” 

Although the editors treat this as Jerome, it seems as though it is Helvidius' argument.  For it is the answer to the alleged self-contradiction between wife and betrothed.  Although now we use betrothal differently than then, the term "wife" was sometimes used of a betrothed woman, and she was treated as a wife for purposes of, for example, the law against adultery.  Thus, we can understand that she was Joseph's wife, although they were still in the betrothal period. 

-TurretinFan

Response to Jerome's Response to Helvidius - Part 4b

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

Jerome wrote:

But when he continues, “the Evangelist would never have applied the words, before they came together to persons who were not to come together, any more than one says, before he dined, when the man is not going to dine,” I know not whether to grieve or laugh. Shall I convict him of ignorance, or accuse him of rashness? Just as if, supposing a person to say, “Before dining in harbour I sailed to Africa,” his words could not hold good unless he were compelled some day to dine in harbour. If I choose to say, “the apostle Paul before he went to Spain was put in fetters at Rome,” or (as I certainly might) “Helvidius, before he repented, was cut off by death,” must Paul on being released at once go to Spain, or must Helvidius repent after death, although the Scripture says “In sheol who shall give thee thanks?” Must we not rather understand that the preposition before, although it frequently denotes order in time, yet sometimes refers only to order in thought? So that there is no necessity, if sufficient cause intervened to prevent it, for our thoughts to be realized. When, then, the Evangelist says before they came together, he indicates the time immediately preceding marriage, and shows that matters were so far advanced that she who had been betrothed was on the point of becoming a wife. As though he said, before they kissed and embraced, before the consummation of marriage, she was found to be with child. And she was found to be so by none other than Joseph, who watched the swelling womb of his betrothed with the anxious glances, and, at this time, almost the privilege, of a husband. Yet it does not follow, as the previous examples showed, that he had intercourse with Mary after her delivery, when his desires had been quenched by the fact that she had already conceived.

Jerome's laughter is based on treating grammar incorrectly.  While it is true that there are times that "before he acted" can be used when the action does not follow, Helvidius point is nevertheless correct.  What governs the interpretation of a phrase like, "before he acted," is the context.  In this context, of course, we have a man who waits until Jesus is born, not until Joseph himself dies.  The idea that Joseph's desires for Mary were quenched by the fact that Mary had conceived is the argument we can laugh at, although we would not want to make fun of Jerome.  It is simply clueless as to the nature of heterosexual desire.

-TurretinFan

Eusebius on Psalm 69:7-9

The following is a machine translation of Eusebius' Commentary on the Psalms, at Septuagint Psalm 68 (Psalm 69), Section 5 (corresponding to Psalm 69:7-9).  As a huge word of caution.  This is a machine translation of an underlying text that is in process of scholarly review.  The Greek text may not be perfect, and the English translation thereof may leave a lot to be desired.  I present this here mainly for my own convenience, although also for the curiosity of folks who may have an interest in the subject

 That thou hast been a reproachful man,

...my face hath revealed shame.

I was born a stranger to my brethren,

and a stranger to my mother's sons.

that the jealousy of thy house hath devoured me.

and the dreams of the dreamers have fallen upon me.

Other men, say they, are subject to trials and reproaches for their sins: but I, who have not sinned against thee, have suffered reproaches: for thou, O benevolent God, hast made me sin for the race of men, as they that believe in us are born unto righteousness.

But even thine own self-suffering dreaming, for the sake of thy counsel thou hast emptily and unto death humbled him, while they that stood before me blasphemed, moving their heads, and saying, O thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days, save thyself: if thou be the son of God, come down from the cross. And likewise the chief priests also, mocking after the priests and scribes and Pharisees, said, He hath saved others, he cannot save himself. If he be king of Israel, let him now come down from the cross, and let us believe on him.

That thou hast been in thy mind a reverie,

...that my face may be revealed in shame.

For not for our sins, nor for unlawful deeds, but for thy sake, and for thy foreknowledge, I have suffered reproach, and my face hath revealed shame; or, according to the Confederate,

I have uncovered his face in ugliness.

And all these things I have endured. I have endured them all. But also...

I was born an alien to my brethren,

and a stranger to my mother's sons.

And there were two orders in this place: the one of his brethren indeed, to whom he was born a stranger; and the other of his mother's sons, not of his brethren, to whom he was born a stranger. And have no sons of his mother's mother, being brethren, and serve them in like manner to the former. But he called not her mother's sons brethren, as being in the first order of his brethren that were called, that is to say, in the first order of his brethren that were called.

To his brethren also his disciples, of whom also he saith hereafter, I will call thy name unto my brethren, and in the midst of the church will I sing praises unto thee. and in the gospel of Mary, which appeared after the resurrection from the dead, he said, Go unto my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my father, and the father of you, and my god, and the god of you. But he was born an alienated man to his brethren in the time of the passion which was declared, when all his disciples, being his masters, fled from him, even he, and Peter the chief of the apostles, denied him the third time.

To these he was born a stranger and an alienated man; and to his mother's children, not being his brothers, he became a stranger. Now the gospel of his brethren and his mother is remembered, when he came to his own country, and taught in the synagogue, as if to astonish them, saying, Whence is this wisdom and these powers? is not this the son of the slayer? is not his mother, and his brethren, and his sisters, and his brethren all of them, coming to us? Whence is all this? If we take the sons that are called by the name of his mother in the hand, we must take the holy virgin mother and the rest of his brethren.

But it appears that James his brother, his brother of the oracle, was not alienated from his cause, nor alienated from his faith, nor from his very true disciples, as well as the first to receive the throne of the church in Jerusalem. And the rest of his brethren, though they believed not in him at the first, but afterward professed to believe in him. And they have told the gospel, as his mother and his brethren came out seeking to hear it. And in the Acts of the apostles it is said, as if the apostles were all together, worshipping prayer with Mary his mother and his brethren. So that it is not lawful to speak of them,

I was born an alien to my brethren,

and a stranger to my mother's children.

For he is not a stranger of these, but an honest man: for as a mother, so his chosen brethren, his sons, are of Mary: but if there be beside them the sons of his mother, called by the psalm, to whom he was born a stranger.

Now we know not the mother of the congregation of the Jews, and all the kindred in the flesh of the circumcision: but the sons of this mother, which denied him, and the peacemakers: and him we know not whence he is: for he said unto them, because they thought him a stranger, Why do ye not think of the woman of the Lamb? That ye cannot hear my word. and he that knew him spake again, saying, How shall we say that thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil? he said unto them, I have spoken in my father's name, and ye receive me not: if any man come in my own name, him ye shall receive.

So he became a stranger and an alien to the sons of his mother's womb: and all these things he suffered for the cause chosen, which he necessarily presented, saying.

Translation Credit:

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)

Based on the following Greek Text:

Ὅτι ἕνεκά σου ὑπήνεγκα ὀνειδισμόν,

ἐκάλυψεν ἐντροπὴ τὸ πρόσωπόν μου.

ἀπηλλοτριωμένος ἐγενήθην τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς μου,

καὶ ξένος τοῖς υἱοῖς τῆς μητρός μου·

ὅτι ὁ ζῆλος τοῦ οἴκου σου κατέφαγέν με

καὶ οἱ ὀνειδισμοὶ τῶν ὀνειδιζόντων σε ἐπέπεσαν ἐπ᾽ ἐμέ.

Οἱ μὲν λοιποὶ, φησὶν, ἄνθρωποι δι’ οἰκείας ἁμαρτίας ἐλέγχοις καὶ ὀνειδισμοῖς ὑποβάλλονται· ἐγὼ δὲ ὁ μὴ γνοὺς ἁμαρτίαν ἕνεκά σου ὑπήνεγκα ὀνειδισμόν· ἐπειδήπερ σὺ αὐτὸς ὁ φιλάνθρωπος θεὸς ὑπὲρ τοῦ τῶν ἀνθρώπων γένους ἁμαρτίαν με ἐποίησας, ὅπως οἱ πιστεύοντες εἰς ἐμὲ γένωνται δικαιοσύνη.

Ἀλλὰ καὶ ἕνεκά σου ὑπήνεγκα ὀνειδισμὸν, διὰ τὴν σὴν βουλὴν κενώσας ἐμαυτὸν καὶ μέχρις θανάτου ταπεινώσας, καθ’ ὃν καιρὸν οἱ παραπορευόμενοι ἐβλασφήμουν κινοῦντες τὰς κεφαλὰς αὐτῶν καὶ λέγοντες· οὐὰ ὁ καταλύων τὸν ναὸν, καὶ ἐν τρισὶν ἡμέραις οἰκοδομῶν, σῶσον σεαυτόν. εἰ υἱὸς εἶ τοῦ θεοῦ, κατάβηθι ἀπὸ τοῦ σταυροῦ. ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς ἐμπαίζοντες μετὰ τῶν ἱερέων καὶ Γραμματέων καὶ Φαρισαίων ἔλεγον· ἄλλους ἔσωσεν, ἑαυτὸν οὐ δύναται σῶσαι. εἰ βασιλεὺς Ἰσραήλ ἐστι, καταβάτω νῦν ἀπὸ τοῦ σταυροῦ, καὶ πιστεύσομεν αὐτῷ. πέποιθεν ἐπὶ τὸν θεόν· ῥυσάσθω αὐτὸν, εἰ θέλει αὐτόν. εἶπε γὰρ, ὅτι θεοῦ υἱός εἰμι. ταῦτα δὴ οὖν θεσπίζων ἐπὶ τοῦ παρόντος, φησίν·

Ὅτι ἕνεκά σου ὑπήνεγκα ὀνειδισμόν,

ἐκάλυψεν ἐντροπὴ τὸ πρόσωπόν μου.

Οὐ γὰρ δι’ ἁμαρτίας ἐμὰς, οὐδὲ διὰ παρανόμους πράξεις, ἀλλ’, ἕνεκά σου καὶ τὸν προλεχθέντα ὀνειδισμὸν ὑπέμεινα, καὶ τὸ πρόσωπόν μου ἐκάλυψεν ἐντροπή· ἢ, κατὰ τὸν Σύμμαχον,

Ἐκάλυψεν ἀσχημόνησις τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ.

Καὶ ταῦτα πάντα ὑπέμεινα. φησὶν, ἕνεκά σου, τουτέστιν ἕνεκα τοῦ σοῦ θελήματος. ἀλλὰ καί·

ἀπηλλοτριωμένος ἐγενήθην τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς μου,

καὶ ξένος τοῖς υἱοῖς τῆς μητρός μου.

Δύο δὲ τάγματα ἐν τούτοις παρίστησιν· ἓν μὲν τὸ τῶν ἀληθῶς ἀδελφῶν αὐτοῦ, οἷς ἐγενήθη ἀπηλλοτριωμένος· ἕτερον δὲ τὸ τῶν υἱῶν τῆς μητρὸς αὐτοῦ, οὐ μὴν ἀδελφῶν αὐτοῦ, οἷς ἐγενήθη ξένος. καὶ μὴν ἐχρῆν υἱοὺς μητρὸς αὐτοῦ, ὄντας ἀδελφοὺς, καὶ αὐτοὺς ὁμοίως τοῖς προτέροις χρηματίζειν. ἀλλ’ οὐκ ὠνόμασε τοὺς υἱοὺς τῆς μητρὸς ἀδελφοὺς, ὡς ἑτέρους ὄντας δηλαδὴ παρὰ τὸ πρῶτον τάγμα τῶν ὀνομασθέντων ἀδελφῶν αὐτοῦ.

Εἰς οὖν ἀδελφοὺς μὲν αὐτοῦ γεγονέναι τοὺς αὐτοῦ μαθητὰς, περὶ ὧν καὶ ἐν ἑτέρῳ φησίν· ἀπαγγελῶ τὸ ὄνομά σου τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς μου, καὶ ἐν μέσῳ ἐκκλησίας ὑμνήσω σε. καὶ ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ τῇ Μαρίᾳ φανεὶς μετὰ τὴν ἐκ νεκρῶν ἀνάστασιν ἔλεγε· πορεύου πρὸς τοὺς ἀδελφούς μου, καὶ εἶπον αὐτοῖς· ἀναβαίνω πρὸς τὸν πατέρα μου καὶ πατέρα ὑμῶν, καὶ θεόν μου καὶ θεὸν ὑμῶν. τούτοις οὖν τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς αὐτοῦ ἀπηλλοτριωμένος ἐγενήθη κατὰ τὸν καιρὸν τοῦ δηλουμένου πάθους, ὅτε πάντες οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ ἀφέντες αὐτὸν ἔφυγον, αὐτός τε ὁ κορυφαῖος τῶν ἀποστόλων Πέτρος ἠρνήσατο αὐτὸν τρίτον.

Τούτοις ξένος καὶ ἀπηλλοτριωμένος ἐγενήθη· τοῖς δὲ υἱοῖς τῆς μητρὸς αὐτοῦ, οὐ μὴν καὶ ἀδελφοῖς οὖσιν αὐτοῦ, ξένος γέγονε. μέμνηται δὲ τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ἀδελφῶν αὐτοῦ καὶ μητρὸς, ὅτε, ἐλθὼν εἰς τὴν πατρίδα αὐτοῦ, ἐδίδασκεν ἐν τῇ συναγωγῇ, ὡς ἐκπλήσσεσθαι αὐτοὺς καὶ λέγειν· πόθεν τούτῳ ἡ σοφία αὕτη καὶ αἱ δυνάμεις· οὐχ οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ τοῦ τέκτονος υἱός; οὐχ ἡ μήτηρ αὐτοῦ καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ αἱ ἀδελφαὶ αὐτοῦ πᾶσαι πρὸς ἡμᾶς εἰσι; πόθεν τούτῳ ταῦτα πάντα; ἐὰν μὲν οὖν τοὺς ἐν τῷ μετὰ χεῖρας λεγομένους υἱοὺς μητρὸς αὐτοῦ τούτοις εἶναι ἐκλάβοιμεν, ἀνάγκη τὴν ἁγίαν παρθένον μητέρα φάναι γεγονέναι τῶν λοιπῶν ἀδελφῶν αὐτοῦ.

Ἀλλ’ ἐπιφαίνεται Ἰάκωβος ὁ χρηματίσας αὐτοῦ ἀδελφὸς οὐκ ἀπεξενωμένος αὐτοῦ γεγονὼς, οὐδὲ ἀλλότριος τῆς εἰς αὐτὸν πίστεως, εἷς δὲ τῶν σφόδρα γνησίων αὐτοῦ μαθητῶν· ὡς καὶ τὸν θρόνον ἀναδέξασθαι πρῶτον τῆς ἐν Ἱεροσολύμοις ἐκκλησίας. καὶ οἱ λοιποὶ δὲ αὐτοῦ ἀδελφοὶ, εἰ καὶ τὰ μάλιστα κατ’ ἀρχὰς οὐκ ἐπίστευον εἰς αὐτὸν, ἀλλὰ μετὰ ταῦτα δῆλοί εἰσι πιστεύσαντες. ἱστορεῖ δ’ οὖν τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, ὡς ἄρα ἡ μήτηρ αὐτοῦ καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοὶ αὐτοῦ εἱστήκεισαν ἔξω ζητοῦντες λαλῆσαι αὐτῷ. καὶ ἐν ταῖς Πράξεσι δὲ τῶν ἀποστόλων λέλεκται, ὡς ἄρα ἦσαν οἱ ἀπόστολοι κοινῇ πάντες προσκαρτεροῦντες τῇ προσευχῇ σὺν Μαριὰμ τῇ μητρὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς αὐτοῦ. πῶς οὖν δύναται τούτοις ξένος εἶναι νομίζεσθαι; ὥστε μὴ χώραν ἔχειν περὶ τούτων λέγεσθαι τὸ,

Ἀπηλλοτριωμένος ἐγενήθην τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς μου,

καὶ ξένος τοῖς υἱοῖς τῆς μητρός μου.

Οὐ γὰρ ἦν τούτων ξένος, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἄγαν τίμιος· ὡς μηκέτι τοὺς προλεχθέντας αὐτοῦ ἀδελφοὺς υἱοὺς εἶναι τῆς Μαρίας ἡγεῖσθαι, ἕτεροι δ’ ἂν εἶεν παρὰ τούτους οἱ διὰ τοῦ ψαλμοῦ λεγόμενοι υἱοὶ τῆς μητρὸς αὐτοῦ, οἷς ξένος ἐγενήθη.

Νοήσεις δὲ μητέρα μὲν τὴν τῶν Ἰουδαίων συναγωγὴν καὶ πᾶσαν τὴν κατὰ σάρκα συγγένειαν τῶν ἐκ περιτομῆς· υἱοὺς δὲ τῆς τοιαύτης μητρὸς τοὺς ἀρνησαμένους αὐτὸν, καὶ εἰρηκότας· τοῦτον δὲ οὐκ οἴδαμεν πόθεν ἐστίν· διὸ ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς, ἐπειδὴ ξένον αὐτὸν ἐνόμιζον· διὰ τί τὴν λαλιὰν τὴν ἐμὴν οὐ γινώσκετε; ὅτι οὐ δύνασθε ἀκούειν τὸν λόγον τὸν ἐμόν. ξένον δὲ αὐτὸν πάλιν ἡγοῦντο λέγοντες· οὐ καλῶς ἡμεῖς λέγομεν ὅτι Σαμαρείτης εἶ σὺ, καὶ δαιμόνιον ἔχεις; διὸ ἔλεγε πρὸς αὐτούς· ἐγὼ ἐλήλυθα ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι τοῦ πατρός μου, καὶ οὐ λαμβάνετέ με· ἐὰν ἄλλος ἔλθῃ ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι τῷ ἰδίῳ, ἐκεῖνον λήψεσθε.

Οὕτω τοίνυν ξένος καὶ ἀλλότριος γέγονε τοῖς υἱοῖς τῆς μητρὸς αὐτοῦ. ταῦτα δὲ πάντα ὑπέμενεν διὰ τὴν ἐπιλεγομένην αἰτίαν, ἣν ἀναγκαίως παρίστησι λέγων·

Greek Text courtesy of:

Source

Cordula Bandt (Editor), Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften / Magali Coullet (Editor)

Status of edition

Preview/Preliminary edition (work in progress!)

(link)

There's Something about ... Luigi Gambero

 Luigi Gambero is one of the leading Mariologists of our time.  His book, "Mary and the Fathers of the Church," (Ignatius Press, 1999 based on the Italian original of 1991) is one of the more exhaustive treatments of the subject that one can find from a Roman Catholic perspective.  Sorry to my younger readers for whom the 1990s are not "our time."  Gambero's work received cover endorsements from folks like Peter Stravinskas.  He's not some random guy who happens to be Roman Catholic.

The subject matter index of his book (p. 428), however, reveals a paucity of citations on the topic of the immaculate conception.  Only six authors are identified.  I have rearranged the list from alphabetical order to appearance order in the book (which is also approximately chronological order of birth of the various authors):
1. Ephrem the Syrian (c. A.D. 306-73) p. 110
Gambero writes:

Ephrem's insistence on Mary's spiritual beauty and holiness, and on her freedom from any stain of sin, has led some scholars to hold that he was aware of the privilege of the Immaculate Conception and to point to him as a witness to the dogma. Yet it does not appear that our author was familiar with the problem, at least not in the terms in which it was made clear by later tradition and the dogmatic definition of 1854. In one passage he even uses the term "baptized" to indicate her Son's saving intervention in her regard:

Handmaid and daughter of blood and water [am I] whom You redeemed and baptized.

(Hymns on the Nativity 16, 10)

There's not much to respond to here.  I agree that Ephrem represents one of the earlier examples of high views of Mary.  I also agree that Ephrem did not know of the idea of an immaculate conception of Mary.  Terms like "redeemed" and "baptized" imply that Mary was not always pure, but became so.  As such, while Ephrem does not represent a "Protestant" position, He also does not reflect a view of accepting Mary as always sinless, even with respect to her conception.
I would add that "redeemed" is poetically paired with "blood" and "baptized" with "water."  So, we are not talking about redemption in some other sense than the sacrifice of Christ, and - of course - the Baptism is a baptism related to the forgiveness of sins.

2. Gregory Nazianzen (c. A.D. 329-90) pp. 162-63
Gambero writes:

In the mystery of the Incarnation, the bishop of Nazianzus discerns a wondrous exchange between God and Mary. She offered him the gift of her undiminished virginity, while the Lord, for his part, intervened in an extraordinary manner to bring about her purification, in advance. He empowered her human abilities, to make her worthy of the unique event of the Incarnation:

He was conceived by the Virgin, who had first been purified by the Spirit in soul and body; for, as it was fitting that childbearing should receive its share of honor, so it was necessary that virginity should receive even greater honor.[fn3]

From this doctrine of Mary's purification before the conception of Christ emerges an intuition of the truth which, in 1854, the Church would define as the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.

[fn3: Sermon 38, 13; PG 36, 325B]

The sense in which Gambero's claim that from Gregory's sermon "emerges an intuition of ..." the Immaculate Conception, is that the Immaculate Conception goes far beyond what Gregory claims.  For Gregory, Mary is in need of purification, body and soul, and she receives it prior to Christ's conception.  The dogma of the Immaculate Conception goes much further.  That dogma does not teach that Mary was purified from original sin, but that she was preserved from original.  Gregory's elevation of Mary to being specially purified is a step in the wrong direction toward the immaculate conception, perhaps, but it is still fundamentally inconsistent with the immaculate conception.  So is every author, patristic or otherwise, that takes the position that Mary was purified from something that she had, rather than taking the position that Mary was preserved from ever having original sin the in the first place.

3. Augustine of Hippo(A.D. 354-430) p. 226 (and 226 n. 25)

There seems no doubt that Augustine considered Mary's exemption from sin to be a great grace. But what sins does he mean? Undoubtedly he excludes any personal sin from Mary. Is it possible to hypothesize that Augustine also intended to exclude original sin? Some scholars think so and make him a forerunner of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. A full treatment of the question would call for a lengthy discussion. To us it seems safer to adopt the contrary position, which held by many experts and appears more in accord with numerous Augustinian texts. [fn25]

I would disagree with Gambero's contention that Augustine was saying that Mary was exempt from personal sin.  That said, as Gambero correctly concedes, Augustine nowhere teaches that Mary was exempt from original sin, rather he held the contrary view.  Perhaps in another post, we will consider the question of the famous place where Augustine says he will not discuss the sins of Mary.

4. Romanos the Melodist (Late 5th century to late 6th century) pp. 328-29 (and 329 n. 8)
Gambero has a section entitled, "The Birth of Mary." Gambero writes:

Romans' hymn on the birth of the Virgin may serve as an ancient witness to the introduction of the feast (September 8) in the Church of Constantinople, under the emperor Justinian. The poet sings of this event as a triumph of grace over the weakness and failings of human nature, as revealed in the sterility of Mary's aged parents:

The prayers of Joachim and Anna and the weeping of sterility reached the ears of God and were well received. Thus they gave a life-giving fruit to the world. For while he [Joachim] was praying on the mountain, she [Anna] hid her mortification in the garden. But the barren woman then joyfully brings to light the Mother of God, the nourisher of life.[FN: On the Birth of Mary 1.]

Considering the future mission of Mary, her birth to barren parents is considered a reason for great rejoicing, which the people of Israel already share by anticipation, unwittingly:

Then the tribes of Israel heard that Anna had conceived the immaculate one. So everyone took part in the rejoicing. Joachim gave a banquet, and great was the merriment in the garden. He invited the priests and Levites to prayer; then he called Mary into the center of the crowd, that she might be magnified. [FN: Ibid. 4.]

In this hymn, Romanos recalls two important moments of Mary's infancy and youth: the years she spent in the Temple and  her betrothal to Joseph. Apparently Romanos takes his inspiration from the apocrypha, in particular from the Protoevangelium of James. Later on, addressing Anna directly, the poet weaves a marvelous praise of her extraordinary little daughter:

Your birth is worthy of veneration, O holy woman, because you brought to light the joy of the world, the powerful mediatrix of graces for men. Indeed she is the rampart, the defense, and the haven of whoever trusts in her. Every Christian finds in her, in your fruit, a protector, a defense, and the hope of salvation [FN: Ibid., 10.]

I certainly agree that literary source of this ode is the heretical forgery, the Protoevangelium of James.  Romanos does have a song on the Nativity of the Virgin Mary.  It's listed as hymn 35 in Maas' and Trypanis' edition (they also note it is 28 in Krumbacher's).  Based on a quick check, I think this is the same one quoted by Gambero.

The song does seem to be the first hint in history of any Christians celebrating the Birth of Mary.  Later, with Andrew of Crete and John of Damascus, we see that the practice apparently begun in the 6th century had caught on more widely in the 7th and 8th centuries.  Note, however, that this is the feast of the Birth of Mary, not her Conception.  There is a reason that Bernard of Clairvaux expressed concerns over the idea of celebrating such a feast, centuries later.

Of the presented material, the phrase, "ἒτεκεν τὴν ἄχραντον," translated by Gambero (or his source or his translator from Italian to English) as "had conceived the immaculate one" is the more obviously interesting.  The first issue with this translation is that ἒτεκεν means to give birth, not to conceive.  The second issue is that while ἄχραντον, which means "undefiled," can reasonably be translated here as "immaculate," it does not necessarily have anything to do with Mary's connection to original sin (or not).  That's only an issue for folks who are eager to see her as immaculately conceived and who forget that she was also viewed as an immaculate virgin.  

Moreover, while the text says that Anna gave birth to the Immaculate, this is not a commentary on when Mary became (in Romanos' understanding) Immaculate.  For example, in the first stanza we see: "But the barren woman then joyfully brings to light the Mother of God."  Surely no one would be so foolish as to think that Mary was born already a mother.  So, if one does not assume that, one should be careful what one assumes about the title, Immaculate.  

So, while Romanos is an example of relatively high Mariology, particularly for his century, he still falls short of knowing of the immaculate conception.

5. Andrew of Crete (A.D. 650-740) pp. 392-95
In a section entitled, "Mary, Spotless Creature," Gambero writes:

Andrew's witness to the Church's faith in the exceptional holiness of the Mother of the Lord is absolutely remarkable. He affirms more than once that the Blessed Virgin lived her whole life without being contaminated by any moral sin. The insistence with which the bishop of Crete returns to this point is so strong that some have seen him as an exponent of the Immaculate Conception. Even if we cannot accept this thesis without hesitation, we must at least recognize that Andrew had a highly elevated concept of the Virgin's sinlessness and holiness. We cite one of the numerous texts:

It was right, then, that the admirable Joachim and his spouse, Anna, inspired by divine thoughts, did obtain her as the fruit of their prayer, her, I say, the queen of nature, the firstfruits of our race, whose birthday we celebrate, whose swaddling clothes we honor, and whom we venerate as the source of the restoration of our fallen race. [FN: Homily 3 on Mary's Nativity, PG 97, 860 B-C]

This text presents Mary as the firstfruits of the human race; that is, the first creature who received the gift of salvation. But Andrew explains it even more clearly:

This Mary the Theotokos, the common refuge of all Christians, the first to be liberated from the original fall of our first parents. [FN: Homily 4 on Mary's Nativity, PG 97, 880 C]

We could present many more passages in which Andrew expresses this concept. However, when our author speaks of Mary as the first person to be redeemed, or as the first to be liberated from original sin, he does not define the nature of the intervention God wrought in her. Hence we would not be justified to attribute to him the concept of preservation from original sin as we understand the concept today, precisely as the solemn Magisterium of the Church has defined it. It is true that Andrew is mentioned in the bull Ineffabilis Deus as being among the witnesses to the Immaculate Conception. More than anything else, however, his testimony witness to the development of the faith of the Christian people, on their journey toward a light that would illuminate the mystery ever more clearly.

I interrupt the section here to comment.  Mary being "liberated from the original fall" seems to imply that she was under it and then subsequently freed, not preserved from it.  While Andrew's excessively high view of Mary is definitely a step in the direction that ultimately became the error of the Immaculate Conception, the evidence of him adopting such a view is not there. 

Gambero continues:

Also, we have to keep in mind that the bishop of Crete did not share the notion of original sin that the Latin theologians had already formed. Therefore, it is understandable that he could speak in these terms without considering the problem of the presence or absence of original sin in Mary.

Instead, Andrew appears to have believed that God prepared the holy Virgin in advance, on both the moral and personal level, to make her worthy and capable of being God's Mother:

A place had to be prepared before the King's arrival. The royal garments had to be woven before they could receive the royal Child at his birth. Finally, the clay had to be prepared before the Potter's arrival.[FN: Homily 3 on the Nativity, PG 97, 860 B]

We have already seen, in more than one place, how this concept of Mary's purification at the moment of the Annunciation was shared by other Fathers of the Church in preceding centuries.

This acknowledges the key point: one of the early stages of the increasing Marian devotion was to say that Mary was purified at the Annunciation, namely just before Christ's conception.  This view is inconsistent with the doctrine of the immaculate conception.  While people can certainly speculate a notion of Mary being already perfectly pure and just getting more "grace" infused into her, it is hard to conceptualize the purification of something already perfectly pure.  

6. John Damascene (c. A.D. 675 - c. A.D. 749) pp. 401-02
Gambero writes:

John Damascene often speaks of Mary as a sublime creature, filled with spiritual treasures. Accordingly, his homily on the Nativity, for example, goes so far as to make clear and explicit allusions--unprecedented in previous centuries--to the mystery of the Immaculate Conception. Naturally, it is necessary to keep in mind the different view of original sin that already divided Byzantine theology from Western thought.

For John, both the Virgin Mary's conception and her birth took place completely under the influence of divine grace. These two events also shaped the role played by her parents, Joachim and Anna. Their previous sterility is explained thus:

Because it would come to pass that the Virgin Theotokos would be born of Anna, nature did not dare anticipate the seed of grace but remained unfruitful until grace bore fruit.[FN: Homily on the Nativity 2, PG 96, 664A]

Anna's sterility was, therefore, a condition previously arranged in the divine plan, so that the role of grace would appear fully predominant. This is why Damascene always names the Virgin's parents with profound respect: they would offer themselves as the passive instruments of God's miraculous intervention:

O blessed loins of Joachim, whence the all-pure seed was poured out! O glorious womb of Anna, in which the most holy fetus grew and was formed, silently increasing! O womb in which was conceived the living heaven, wider than the wideness of the heavens [FN: Ibid., 2, PG 96, 664B]

It is worth noting here that even at the very end of the Patristic era, one must look to the very high Marian views of John of Damascus to find something approaching the Immaculate Conception.  This is not the actual doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, because of John of Damascus different view on original sin, but it is at least close.

You may recall from other discussions that for most of the fathers, Mary was not an exception because was generated the usual way: from a physical relationship between her parents.  John of Damascus finds a way around this by naming and claiming the immaculate ejaculate of Joachim.  Thankfully, that's not a dogma that Rome adopted.  If it was ever considered in Western thought, I would speculate that they would realize that this escape clause would eliminate the original need for Mary's virginity.  If Jesus could be born of Joseph's seed, some how immaculate-d beforehand, and if that would have resolved the issue, there would not have been a need for Jesus to be born of a virgin in the first place.  

We have now completed this particular survey.  Consider how little there was to review, and how far it was from demonstrating a continuous belief in the immaculate conception in the church from the time of the apostles onward.

-TurretinFan

Clement VI Semon Verified (?)

Clement VI's Sermon is Sermon 6 in Mollat's list of the oratorical works of Clement VI.  This one is a bit more interesting, because Mollat seemingly mentions Alva, and notes some interesting problems associated with dating this particular sermon.  The idea that the sermon is not authentic, however, does ont seem to be on Mollat's mind:

L'ŒUVRE ORATOIRE DE CLÉMENT VI, G. Mollat in Archives d'histoire doctrinale et littéraire du Moyen Age, Vol. 3 (1928), pp. 239-274 (36 pages), Published By: Librairie Philosophique J. Vrin

And I think that closes the loop for how many popes it takes to deny the immaculate conception.

Innocent III Denies the Immaculate Conception (with more complete citation/sources)

William Albrecht, relying on a secondary source, alleged that the sermons of Innocent III that were quoted in "How Many Popes does it Take to Deny the Immaculate Conception?" (link) were inauthentic.  His quotation stated:

"John Baptist Posa [t] say those sermons of Innocent III were plucked from apocryphal libraries. Fr. Peter of Alva, and Theophilus Raynaudus say that the sermons were by John Lotharius, a Canon regular."

Oddly enough Lothario dei Conti was Innocent III's name before he became pope.  

The sections of the relevant sermons are found among the authentic writings of Innocent III, in the Migne Latin Patrology,  second series, Tome CCXVII.

The Sermon on the Purification of the Virgin is Sermon XII (of the Sermones De Tempore series), and the relevant material is at col. 506-07:

But forthwith [upon the Angel’s words, ‘The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee’] the Holy Ghost came upon her. He had before come into her, when, in her mother’s womb, He cleansed her soul from original sin; but now too He came upon her to cleanse her flesh from the ‘fomes’ of sin, that she might be altogether without spot or wrinkle. That tyrant then of the flesh, the sickness of nature, the ‘fomes’ of sin, as I think, He altogether extinguished, that henceforth any motion from the law of sin should not be able to arise in her members.

Sermon on the Assumption, Sermon 2 (aka Second Discourse on the Assumption) is Sermon XXVIII (of the Sermones de Sanctis series) at column 581.  Note the Editor's note that excuses Innocent III's views on the grounds that the doctrine had not yet been defined.

Eve was produced without sin, but she brought forth in sin; Mary was produced in sin, but she brought forth without sin.

The Sermon On the Feast of John the Baptist, is Sermon XVI (of the Sermones de Festis series) and the material is at column 531.

Of John the Angel does not speak of the conception but of the birth. But of Jesus he predicts alike the Birth and the Conception. For to Zechariah the father it is predicted, ‘Thy wife shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John,’ but to Mary the mother it is predicted, ‘Behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb and bear a Son, and shalt call His Name Jesus.’ For John was conceived in fault, but Christ Alone was conceived without fault. But each was born in grace, and therefore the Nativity of each is celebrated, but the Conception of Christ Alone is celebrated.

And you will see from the column range that these are all within the range of the authentic sermons, not in the "Dubiorum" group.

So, I cannot help but think that Mr. Albrecht has made a serious error in relying on the less than reliable pen of Mr. Peter D'Alva (or Peter of Alva), one of the major proponents of the immaculate conception in the 1600s.  Migne's patrology was published, unless I am mistaken, in the 1800s, although sometimes building on the work of preceding centuries.  Nevertheless, between someone with an obvious axe to grind and the Migne patrology, it seems clear who is more reliable.

Pilgrim Theology and the New Heavens and New Earth

Sometimes it's valuable to remember the Old Testament context to New Testament statements.  

The author of Hebrews uses the expression "strangers and pilgrims on the earth" in the following text:

Hebrews 11:13

These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.

There is a temptation to see this as meaning that the earth is just temporary place before we go off to a different place forever.  The only other (or possibly the same, though I don't know anyone who thinks this) New Testament author who uses this phrase is Peter.  He write:

1 Peter 2:11-12

Dearly beloved, I beseech you as strangers and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul; having your conversation honest among the Gentiles: that, whereas they speak against you as evildoers, they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation.

Interestingly, even both Hebrews and Peter are not written by the same inspired man, both Hebrews and Peter are written to first-century Jewish believers.  These believers can be expected to have in mind the Old Testament use of the stranger/pilgrim motif. 

Where does this concept originate in the Old Testament?  The corresponding Greek word for "pilgrim" is found first in Genesis.   

Genesis 23:4

I am a stranger and a sojourner with you: give me a possession of a buryingplace with you, that I may bury my dead out of my sight.

The idea of pilgrim or sojourner is used a number of times in the Old Testament, particularly regarding Abraham and his descendants from the time when he first came to Canaan until the reentry into Canaan.

My reason for bringing this up is that while Abraham and his family were strangers and pilgrims in Canaan, there is a sense in which they were not on a journey to somewhere entirely different - just to Canaan 430 years later.

In the same way, it makes sense to realize that one picture of the New Heavens and New Earth in Scripture is of something new coming down from heaven after the world-ending fire destroys everything, even the oceans.  Thus, we are strangers and pilgrims here on this planet, but that does not preclude the post-resurrection new heavens and new earth from on this same planet, rebuilt after the fire.  I certainly don't think I would feel comfortable being dogmatic about that, but the idea is fascinating.

Homily of the Papyrus of Turin - Pseudo-Athanasius

In a previous post, I raised a question regarding authenticity of The Homily of the Papyrus of Turin (link to previous post), sometimes attributed to Athanasius.  It's been a while since that post, but I see that some folks (typically in Roman Catholic apologetic circles) are still citing the work because of what it says about Mary. 

In terms of Athanasius scholarship, this homily isn't considered one of the authentic works.  Its current designation in Clavis Patrum Graecorum is 2187, which is within the range for "dubious" works attributed to Athanasius.

"Dormition et assomption de Marie : Histoire des traditions anciennes" (1995), by  Simon Claude Mimouni part of the Beauchesne collection on theological history, summarizes the discussion of the work this way, in footnote 230 on page 416

 

As to our question, Mimouni explains that the current scholarly view is that: "Il est difficile de considérer l'attribution comme authentique." (It is difficult to consider the attribution to be genuine.)  Robert Caro's suggestion is that the author may be Didymus the Blind (late 4th century).

It may indeed be from the 4th or 5th century (as Caro thinks). The bottom line, however, is that this is not one of the authentic works of Athanasius.  

From the standpoint of historical theology, keep in mind that the veneration of Mary is something that grew over time.  It is not an apostolic tradition, nor does Scripture teach us to venerate Mary in the sense that Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox ask us to do.  We can describe her as being blessed by God in the sense that Scripture says, and we can also affirm her apparent role as one of Luke's eyewitnesses for the Gospel of Luke.  That said, the cult of Mary is entirely inappropriate.