James and John, not full biological brothers?

The late Roman Catholic scholar John Meier made a good point about the perpetual virginity of Mary that should be brought up more often. What's our initial impression when the terminology that's applied to Jesus is applied to other individuals? When the New Testament refers to James and John, the sons of Zebedee, as brothers, what's our initial impression about their relationship? That they're full biological siblings. Most likely, we retain that initial impression for the rest of our lives, unless we encounter overriding evidence. Terminology is sometimes applied in unusual ways. The term "son" can refer to an adoptive rather than biological relationship, for example, but that doesn't prevent us from recognizing that the biological meaning is more common. The New Testament qualifies Jesus' familial relationships with the virgin birth, but it never qualifies those relationships with something involving perpetual virginity on Mary's part. The absence of any effort to provide such a qualifier by so many authors across so many contexts is significant. My main point here, though, is that advocates of the perpetual virginity of Mary need to provide an overriding justification for interpreting the terminology the way they do. The way we interpret the relationship between James and John is an illustration of that.

How common was opposition to the perpetual virginity of Mary in the late patristic and early medieval eras?

I've said a lot over the years about early evidence against the perpetual virginity of Mary, in the New Testament and in early extrabiblical sources. See my recent post on Irenaeus, for example. What I want to do in this post is say more about the later sources. Helvidius will often be mentioned without much or any discussion of others, but he was far from an isolated individual on the subject in his day or in the centuries that followed.

Irenaeus' Opposition To The Perpetual Virginity Of Mary

I want to quote and comment on a few of the relevant passages.

Early Opposition To The Perpetual Virginity Of Mary

The large majority of discussions of the topic ignore a lot of the evidence against Mary's perpetual virginity. Hegesippus and Irenaeus, for example, probably rejected the concept that Mary was a perpetual virgin, yet few opponents of the doctrine cite those church fathers. Often, opponents of the doctrine don't cite any extrabiblical sources or only cite one or two. They need to get better at handling the issue.

For an overview of the evidence against the perpetual virginity of Mary in both Biblical and extrabiblical sources, see here (including the comments section) and here.

Even as late as the fourth century, a supporter of Mary's perpetual virginity, Basil of Caesarea, conceded some significant points on the subject. Philip Donnelly wrote:

Does Luke 1:34 suggest that Mary took a vow of perpetual virginity?

Roman Catholics and other advocates of Mary's perpetual virginity often claim that Luke 1:34 implies that Mary had taken a vow of perpetual virginity. Why else would she ask Gabriel how she was to conceive? These same Catholics (and others) often cite the second-century apocryphal work The Protevangelium Of James to support their view that Mary was a perpetual virgin. Go here and do a Ctrl F search for "apocryphal document" to read about some of the problems with that sort of appeal to the document. The Protevangelium has Mary needing to be corrected by Gabriel about becoming pregnant the same way other women do (11). It doesn't seem that the author of the Protevangelium interpreted Luke 1:34 the way these modern Catholics interpret the passage. Here are some other observations on Luke 1:34, which I wrote in correspondence with a friend on Facebook last year:

Rejection Of The Perpetual Virginity Of Mary Before The Reformation

We're sometimes told that nobody denied the perpetual virginity of Mary before the Reformation. Or we'll be told that only some small number of people denied it during that timeframe. It may be suggested that Tertullian and Helvidius were the only ones, for example.

Actually, the evidence suggests that the doctrine was contradicted by several New Testament authors and many extrabiblical sources prior to the Reformation. Tertullian and Helvidius were two of them, but not the only ones. See here for a thread (including its comments section) that addresses the sources most often discussed. And see here for a discussion of other sources, who are brought up less often.

Don't Forget About Josephus

There are some contexts in which Christians should be giving Josephus more attention than they typically do. Because Josephus was a non-Christian, he had no dog in some of the fights among the Christians of his day or later generations. And since he was writing so early (the late first century), his comments are more valuable accordingly.

As Steve Mason (a non-Christian scholar who specializes in the study of Josephus) noted, "He [Josephus] also confirms, in case there was any doubt, that James was distinguished by being Jesus' actual brother - a significant point in view of later Christian thinking about Mary's status as 'perpetual virgin' and speculation as to whether Jesus' 'brothers and sisters' were really only spiritual relatives or more distant physical relations." (Josephus And The New Testament [Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 2005], 248) For more about how Josephus supports Mary's giving birth to other children after Jesus, and does so in multiple ways, see Eric Svendsen's Who Is My Mother? (Amityville, New York: Calvary Press, 2001).

On page 214 of his book cited above, Mason quotes Josephus' comments on how the baptism of John the Baptist was non-justificatory and non-regenerative: "They must not employ it [baptism] to gain pardon for whatever sins they had committed, but as a consecration of the body implying that the soul was already cleansed by right behaviour." (Antiquities Of The Jews, 18:5:2) Given the close relationship between John and Jesus and John's baptism and Christian baptism (as illustrated by John 3:26-30 and Peter's comments in 1 Peter 3:21 that are similar to those of Josephus, for example), it makes more sense to think that there would be more rather than less continuity between the two baptisms. The New Testament evidence suggests that John's baptism was non-justificatory and non-regenerative, and Josephus gives us further reason to reach that conclusion.

Is the PVM a big deal?

Is the perpetual virginity of Mary (hereafter PVM) a big deal? A few considerations:

1. What's at stake

In itself, the PVM is not a deal-breaker for the Protestant faith, but it is a deal-breaker for the Catholic faith. If the PVM is true, that doesn't falsify the Protestant faith–but if the PVM is false, that falsifies the Catholic faith. It's dogma. If even one Catholic dogma is false, the Catholic faith is false. Protestants don't have the same stake in the issue that Catholics do. In principle, we can take it or leave it . 

2. Burden of proof

i) As a rule, we should avoid giving credence things without sufficient evidence. Gullibility is not a theological or epistemic virtue. As a practical matter, we can't avoid forming many beliefs without sufficient evidence, and that's frequently innocuous, but sometimes it's harmful. In addition, religious beliefs are more important than many mundane beliefs because there's more to gain if you're right and more to lose if you're wrong.  

ii) The onus is not on Protestants to provide evidence to the contrary, but on Catholics to provide sufficient evidence. It's not incumbent on me to disprove something for which there's no good evidence. If you tell me there's a genie in the bottle, the burden of proof is not on me to prove you wrong. 

iii) There's a standing presumption that Jewish couples had sexual relations. Is there compelling evidence to overcome that presumption?

3. Rationale

Ironically, the reasons Catholics give in support of the PVM may be reasons to reject it. Considered in isolation, it's not a big deal one way or the other, but the justification may make it a big deal. Consider Brant Pitre's contention that it was dangerous for Joseph to have marital relations with Mary because she was the ark of the covenant. For Joseph to have sexual relations with his wife was equivalent to unauthorized personnel venturing into the Holy of Holies. If you did that you got zapped. 

In effect, that makes Mary radioactive. A hazard zone. Did they requires separate beds? Was it safe to hold hands, or did Joseph have to wear latex gloves lest he combust through skin contact with his wife? 

4. Dogmatic authority

A Protestant might be open to the possibility of the PVM, but that's not nearly good enough from a Catholic standpoint. Rather, you are obligated to believe it. You must have a level of certitude disconnected from the level of the evidence. 

Ultimately, church authority is the makeweight. Believe it on the authority of the Roman magisterium. If, however, you reject the claims of Rome, that's a reason to reject the PVM. 

5. Exaggerated importance

Something can become important, not because it's intrinsically important, but because people make it more important than it is. Making something optional or inconsequential mandatory or all-important creates a problem where no problem existed. 

6. The cult of virginity

It lays the foundation for monasticism. The notion that normal family life can't be as holy as the single state. To be saintly you must be celibate.

7. Virginity in partu

According to Catholic dogma, as I understand it, either Jesus didn't pass through the birth canal, or even if he did, that didn't rupture the hymen. 

That treats the process of childbirth as impure or defiling. But human beings are essentially earthy. We have souls, but we're embodied agents. We are earthy by design. That's not a result of the Fall. 

To take a comparison, have you ever considered what it means that the Son remains Incarnate? It carries the presumption that even now, Jesus must eat, breathe, drink, itch, sneeze, sweat, sleep, excrete, trim his hair, fingernails, and toenails. Maybe he snores. He's not a heathen deity with elixir flowing through his veins. 

Are Jesus' Siblings Children From Joseph's Previous Marriage?

The best book I've read on the subject of Mary's perpetual virginity (and Marian issues more broadly) is Eric Svendsen's Who Is My Mother? (Amityville, New York: Calvary Press, 2001). On the patristic evidence related to whether Mary was a perpetual virgin, see here. In case this information would be helpful to anybody, here are some comments I recently made about the perpetual virginity doctrine in an email exchange with a couple of people:

Annulment

Technically, the church of Rome regards marriage as indissoluble. Hence, its opposition to divorce. There is, however, a very large loophole, and that's annulment. This involves the theory that some unions lack one or more necessary conditions to be "valid" marriages in the first place. When the church of Rome nullifies one of these unions, it is merely giving formal recognition to the preexisting fact that this was never a valid marriage. See here:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P3V.HTM

Can.  1083 §1. A man before he has completed his sixteenth year of age and a woman before she has completed her fourteenth year of age cannot enter into a valid marriage.

The age threshold for males is somewhat arbitrary. That would invalidate many Jewish marriages. From what I've read, puberty is the Jewish threshold. 

Can.  1085 §1. A person bound by the bond of a prior marriage, even if it was not consummated, invalidly attempts marriage.

This assumes that a wedding ceremony alone, absent consummation, is sufficient for a valid marriage. 

Can.  1091 §1. In the direct line of consanguinity marriage is invalid between all ancestors and descendants, both legitimate and natural.
§2. In the collateral line marriage is invalid up to and including the fourth degree.
§3. The impediment of consanguinity is not multiplied.
§4. A marriage is never permitted if doubt exists whether the partners are related by consanguinity in any degree of the direct line or in the second degree of the collateral line.
Can.  1092 Affinity in the direct line in any degree invalidates a marriage.
Can.  1093 The impediment of public propriety arises from an invalid marriage after the establishment of common life or from notorious or public concubinage. It nullifies marriage in the first degree of the direct line between the man and the blood relatives of the woman, and vice versa.
Can.  1094 Those who are related in the direct line or in the second degree of the collateral line by a legal relationship arising from adoption cannot contract marriage together validly.

Doesn't that invalidate the marriage of Sarah and Abraham? She was his stepsister. 

Perhaps Rome would try to salvage the condition by asserting that prohibited degrees of affinity are variable in time or place. But isn't canon law respecting marriage supposed to be grounded in natural law rather than social conventions?

Can.  1103 A marriage is invalid if entered into because of force or grave fear from without, even if unintentionally inflicted, so that a person is compelled to choose marriage in order to be free from it.

Doesn't that invalidate Hosea's marriage to Gomer? Left to his druthers, he would not knowingly marry a promiscuous woman. He was acting under duress. God commanded him to marry her. 

Can.  1055 §1. The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring, has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament between the baptized.
Can.  1096 §1. For matrimonial consent to exist, the contracting parties must be at least not ignorant that marriage is a permanent partnership between a man and a woman ordered to the procreation of offspring by means of some sexual cooperation.
Can.  1102 §1. A marriage subject to a condition about the future cannot be contracted validly.

Doesn't that invalidate the marriage of Mary and Joseph?

i) After Gabriel intervened to inform Joseph of God's will, it's not as if Joseph was at liberty to carry through with his intentions (pace Can. 1103). He'd incur God's displeasure.

ii) Both Mary and Joseph were betrothed with the expectation that they'd have a normal marriage rather than a platonic marriage. A prior understanding of what their marriage would amount to. But according to Catholic dogma, Mary was a perpetual virgin. If so, they became betrothed under false pretenses. Their matrimonial consent was subject to a future condition, which was thwarted by Mary's perpetual virginity.

It's like signing a contract, only to have the terms of the contract altered after the fact. That's not what you agreed to.

iii) If marriage is ordered to the procreation of offspring by means of some sexual cooperation, and that's a necessary condition of matrimonial consent, then that invalidates their marriage–given Mary's perpetual virginity.

So on no fewer than three separate grounds, Mary and Joseph were never validly married–by Catholic criteria. 

Perhaps Rome would try to salvage the condition by asserting that Mary and Joseph are a special case. But, once again, isn't canon law respecting marriage supposed to be grounded in natural law? If so, aren't these conditions a matter of principle? Something absolute, given human nature? 

CNN On Mary's Perpetual Virginity

An upcoming program in CNN's Finding Jesus series is going to be about James, the James Ossuary, and whether Mary had children after Jesus. You can find a lot of material on the perpetual virginity of Mary in the thread here. Keep in mind that not only does the New Testament contradict the perpetual virginity of Mary, but so do most of the earliest sources of the patristic era who comment on the subject: Josephus, Hegesippus, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, etc.