Did Mary & Joseph have a normal marriage

[Ed Normile]

I have seen this debated online for ten years at least, the funny thing is the protestant sects that regularly call each other brother and sister are the ones who are hung up on this? You would think that a group who gets together and frequently calls everyone by that name would undestand its not used biblically to denote familial ties of parentage as much as it is to denote any tie such as cousins or distant relations, and in many cases strangers they are trying to be courteous too, that should be evident just by the scripture they try to push everyone to live by.

ed

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='Ed Normile' timestamp='1294726717' post='2198907']
I have seen this debated online for ten years at least, the funny thing is the protestant sects that regularly call each other brother and sister are the ones who are hung up on this? You would think that a group who gets together and frequently calls everyone by that name would undestand its not used biblically to denote familial ties of parentage as much as it is to denote any tie such as cousins or distant relations, and in many cases strangers they are trying to be courteous too, that should be evident just by the scripture they try to push everyone to live by.

ed
[/quote]
You know, despite growing up Baptist, and therefore hearing many referred to as "Brother So-and-so", I hadn't thought of that.

[organwerke]

[quote name='Lumiere' timestamp='1294181502' post='2196668']
Excuse me, but Jesus had brothers and sisters, Mark 6:2-3, so Mary and Joseph must have had a fully normal marriage.

In Mathew 4:18-20, the two brothers Peter and Andrew are referred to, does this actually mean cousins?
[/quote]


Also nowadays, there are lots of situations in which we use the words "brother and sister" without the meaning of "blood brother".
The first and silly example that comes to my mind is that of "the blues Brothers": were Dan Aykroyd and John Belushi blood brothers? No? And so, why did they call themselves that way?

Other example: how many times we hear that we must help "our brothers and sisters in need", simply meaning with that to help human beings like us who need our help?

Not to mentioning the use of calling "brothers and sisters" those in religious life...

If we usually use these terms in this sense, why couldn't Mark have done the same?

Other thing: you say Peter and Andrew are referred to as brothers, and they really were.
Note that in this case, not only they are called by name, but, also, it is said the name of their common father. (they were sons of Zebedeus).
In the Gospels there are no brothers or sisters of Jesus quoted with their name, don't you think that if Jesus had had a blood brother or sister, the Gospels would have quoted him or her by name, as they do with John the Baptist, the blood cousin of Jesus?

[CatherineM]

The most important thing to me is no whether people were listed as Jesus's siblings, but rather if any were listed as Mary's children.

[AudreyGrace]

[quote name='CatherineM' timestamp='1294768282' post='2199002']
The most important thing to me is no whether people were listed as Jesus's siblings, but rather if any were listed as Mary's children.
[/quote]

[img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/clap.gif[/img][img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/clap2.gif[/img][img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/bravo.gif[/img][img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/like3.gif[/img]

[MithLuin]

[quote name='organwerke' timestamp='1294744092' post='2198942']
Also nowadays, there are lots of situations in which we use the words "brother and sister" without the meaning of "blood brother".
The first and silly example that comes to my mind is that of "the blues Brothers": were Dan Aykroyd and John Belushi blood brothers? No? And so, why did they call themselves that way? [/quote]

Ummm....actually....

The characters' names are Jake Blues and Elwood Blues. They are, collectively, the Blues Brothers. They [i]were[/i] blood brothers in the movie. I think you might want to start using 'Band of Brothers' (about soldiers who served together) instead.

[Semper Catholic]

Normal Marriage? Their family consisted of the Virgin Mary, the Son of God, and another Saint. yeah perfectly normal.

[MithLuin]

In this case, 'normal' is a euphemism for sharing the marital embrace. In other words, the question under consideration is whether or not Mary and Joseph were sexually intimate.

The teaching of the Catholic Church is that, no, they were not; Mary was perpetually a virgin.

They were, however, spouses, and knew one another intimately.

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='MithLuin' timestamp='1294870286' post='2199454']
Ummm....actually....

The characters' names are Jake Blues and Elwood Blues. They are, collectively, the Blues Brothers. They [i]were[/i] blood brothers in the movie. I think you might want to start using 'Band of Brothers' (about soldiers who served together) instead.
[/quote]

On another note, i just started watching Band of Brothers and it is awesome. but then, so is the Blues Brothers.

[quote name='Semper Catholic' timestamp='1294870433' post='2199455']
Normal Marriage? Their family consisted of the Virgin Mary, the Son of God, and another Saint. yeah perfectly normal.
[/quote]



[quote name='MithLuin' timestamp='1294871667' post='2199458']

The teaching of the Catholic Church is that, no, they were not; Mary was perpetually a virgin.

They were, however, spouses, and knew one another intimately.
[/quote]

perhaps you and i have different definitions of the word "intimate"

[Cam42]

Here is an article from the Rev. Fr. William G. Most, that great biblical scholar says this about the brothers and sisters of the Lord:

[quote]Mt. 13.55 and Mk 6.3 name the following as brothers of Jesus: James, Joseph
(Joses - the manuscripts vary on the spelling), Simon and Judas.

But Mt 27.56 says at the cross were Mary the mother of James and Joseph.
Mark 15,40 says Mary the mother of James the younger and Joses was there.

So, although the proof is not conclusive, it seems that--unless we suppose
these were others with the same names, that the first two, James and Joseph
(Joses) had a mother other than the Mother of Jesus.

Therefore the term brother was used for those who were not sons of Mary the
Mother of Jesus. So the same easily could be the case with the other
two, Simon and Judas.

Further if Mary had other natural sons and daughters too at the time of the
cross, it would be strange for Jesus to ask John to take care of her.
Especially, James the "brother of the Lord" was alive in 49 AD (Gal 1:19).
He should have taken care of her.

Lot, who was the nephew of Abraham (cf. Gen 11.27-31) is called his brother
in Gen 13.8 and 14.14-16.

The Hebrew and Aramaic "ah" was used for various types of relations: Cf.
Michael Sokoloff, "A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic" (Bar Ilan
University Press, Ramat-Gan, Israel, 1990, p. 45.) Hebrew had no word for
cousin.They could say "ben-dod" which means son of a paternal uncle, but
for other kinds of cousins they would need a complex phrase, such as "the
son of the brother of his mother" or, "the son of the sister of his
mother". For complex Aramaic expressions see Sokoloff, p. 111 and 139.


Objection 1: We should not consider the Hebrew--Greek did have a word for
cousin and other kinds of relatives also, and the Gospels do not use the
other specific words for the relatives of Jesus. They use only Greek
"adelphos," which means a real brother.

Reply 1: The Septuagint (the old Greek translation of the Hebrew OT--
abbreviated LXX) uses Greek "adelphos," brother, for Lot - who as mentioned
above, was really a nephew.

Furthermore, the writers of the Gospels and Epistles often had Hebrew words
in mind when they wrote Greek words. This is specially true with St. Paul.
And, as we shall see presently, there is strong evidence that St. Luke at
some points was translating Hebrew documents - two kinds of Hebrew - with
meticulous care.

The LXX for Mal 1:2-3 has this: "I have loved Jacob and hated Esau." St.
Paul in Rom 9:13 quotes it the same way in Greek. Yet the LXX translators
knew both Hebrew and Greek and so did Paul, yet they used a very odd, even
potentially misleading Hebrew expression. How did it happen? Hebrew and
Aramaic lacked the degrees of comparison (such as: good, better, best;
clear, clearer, clearest) and so they had to find other way to express such
ideas. Where we would say: "I love one more, the other less", the Hebrew
said "I love the one and hate the other." In Luke 14:26 Our Lord tells us
that we must hate our parents." Again,it means to love them less than one
loves Christ. Similarly,in 1 Cor 1:17 Paul says: "Christ did not send me to
baptize but to preach"--yet Paul had just said he did baptize some. He
really means, in the Hebrew way of speaking: My more important mission was
to preach, less important was to baptize.

St. Paul in 1 Thes 4:5 speaks of the gentiles "who do not know God". He uses
"know" in the sense of Hebrew "yada," a broader word, to know and to love.
In fact quite a few times we must think of what Hebrew word was in Paul's
mind to fully understand his Greek words.

All scholars admit that St. Luke's Gospel has more Semitisms than the books
written by Semites (even though Luke was not a Semite himself, but a Greek
Physician). Why? It had been thought that Luke did this to imitate the
style of the LXX but a study I made (In my article, "Did St.Luke Imitate
the Septuagint?" published in the international "Journal for Study of the
New Testament" (July 1982, pp. 30-41 from the University of Sheffield,
England) showed statistically that Luke did not try to imitate the
Septuagint. I made a study of a very strange Semitism in Luke, the apodotic
"kai," which reflects Hebrew apodotic "wau." Here is an example from Luke
5:1: "And it happened--when the crowds pressed on Him to hear the word of
God--and He stood by the Lake. The underlined and would be in place in
Hebrew- but not in Greek, not even in Aramaic. By actual count, St.Luke
uses it only about 20 to 25% of the times he would use it if he were
imitating the Septuagint. Clearly that was not his reason for using it. So
why did he do it at all? In his opening lines, St. Luke says he took great
care, spoke to eye-witnesses, and read written accounts about Jesus. Now
written accounts could have been in Greek (a few Jews grew up speaking
Greek), Hebrew, or Aramaic. So it is possible that St. Luke had used
written accounts in those languages. Greek on Greek would not show, of
course, but if he used Hebrew documents part of the time, and if he
translated them with meticulous care - so extreme that he would bring a
Hebrew structure into Greek, where it did not belong - then we could
explain what he did. The odd stricture was not normal in Aramaic either, so
we gather that St.Luke seems to have used,at some points, not at all
points, Hebrew documents, and that he translated them with extreme care.
Luke knew how to write fine Greek - yet he did this, Why? It was his
extreme care to be faithful to the original texts he used.--So again, we
need to know the underlying Hebrew to understand (of course in this item,
English translations just skip the and--it appears only if we read St. Luke
in Greek).

There is an important word in Romans 5:19 which speaks of the many as
becoming sinful--original sin. Of course, St.Paul really means all. Yet the
Greek he uses is "polloi." In normal Greek it always means just many, not
all. But if we know the Hebrew in Paul's mind it clears up. There was a
strange word "rabbim" which is first known in Isaiah 53, the prophecy of
the passion. By context there we see it is clear that it means all, yet it
also means many - to be more exact, it means the all who are many.If I were
in a room with 3 others,I could say all, but could not say many. Now if we
use a Greek concordance to find every place in St.Paul where "polloi" is
used as a noun,it always,without exception, means all, as we gather from
context, such as that of Rom. 5:19. Hence we really need to go back to the
Hebrew to understand Paul's Greek here.

Again, St. Paul often uses the Greek "dikaiosyne" not in the narrow usual
Greek sense, but in the broad sense of Hebrew "sedaqah."

There are many other times in the NT where we must consider the underlying
Hebrew in order to get the right sense of the Greek.We have given only
samples, but they should be enough to show how the NT writers worked, and
the need to avoid stopping with the Greek and insisting that we should
ignore the underlying Hebrew, as those do who point out that Greek had
words for cousins and other relatives, even though Hebrew did not.


Objection 2: J.P. Meier, in "A Marginal Jew" (Doubleday, 1991, pp. 325-26)
says that "The New Testament is not translation Greek",and says it would be
a "wooden" translation to follow the Hebrew usage on brother.

Reply 2: Many scholars do think part or all of the Gospels were translation
Greek. The evidence cited above in "Journal for Study of the New Testament"
seems to show that.

Further we have just given extensive evidence to show that regardless of
whether or not the writers were translating,they often used Greek words in
such a way that to understand them we must look to the underlying Hebrew.
This is specially true of Paul in spite of Meier's claim that Paul was not
translating and that he knew "James the brother of the Lord" in person.

Meier also (326-27) asserts that Josephus, a Jew writing in Greek does at
times use the special word for cousin, yet he does use brother for the
"brothers of Jesus."--We reply that we grant Josephus does this. But, did
Josephus have direct information on the real nature of the "brothers" of
Jesus. Not very likely. Meier does not even mention this point.


Objection 3: Meier argues, p. 323, that if we want to say "ah" could mean
cousin, then we should read Mt 12:50 thus: "Whoever does the will of my
Father in heaven is my male cousin, my female cousin, and my mother."
Similarly, on p. 357 he says that Mk 3:35 should read "not even his cousins
believed in him."

Reply 3: Meier seems to be deliberately obtuse here. If "ah" had the broad
meaning, we should keep it in translation,not narrowing it to cousin - it
would include cousin,but not be limited to it.


Objection 4,on Mt 1.25: Protestants like to point to two words here,
"until" and "firstborn".

Until: Most ancient words have a broad span of possible meanings. Sometimes
the word for until leaves room for a change after the time point indicated.
However not nearly always. In Dt. 34:6 Moses was buried, "and to this day
no one knows where the grave is." That was true in the day of the writer of
Dt- it is still true even today. In Psalm 110:1,as interpreted by Jesus
Himself (Mt.22-42-46), "The Lord said to my [David's] Lord: 'Sit at my
right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.'" Of course, Jesus
was not to stop being at the right hand of the Father at any point. So the
word until here does not mean a change of status. Psalm 72:7, a messianic
Psalm, says that in his days "peace will abound until the moon is no more."
Again, the power of the Messiah is not to stop when the moon no longer
gives its light (Mt.24:29). In 2 Samuel 6:23 that David's wife Michal had
no son until the day of her death." Of course,she did not have one after
that! In Mt. 11:23 Our Lord says that if the miracles done in Capernaum had
been done in Sodom, "it would have lasted until the present day." Had it
lasted, Jesus did not intend to destroy it in His time. In Mt 28:20 Jesus
promised to be with His Church, His followers until the end of the world -
nor would He desert them in eternity. In Romans 8:22 St. Paul says that all
creation groans, waiting for there revelation of the sons of God until
Paul's day. Nor did it stop then, that will continue until the restoration
at the end. In 1 Timothy 4:13 the Apostle tells Timothy to devote himself
to reading, exhortation and teaching "until I come." He did not mean
Timothy should stop such things when Paul did come.--and there are more,
but these should be more than enough to show that not always does until in
OT and NT, mean a change of things is to come at the point referred to.

Even J.P. Meier,who works so strenuously to try to show that most probably
Jesus had real siblings,admits that the arguments from "until" proves
nothing (In CBQ Jan. 1992, pp. 9-11).

firstborn: Jesus is called that in Luke 2:& (and also in Mt 1:25 if we take
the Vulgate addition to the Greek). This reflects Hebrew "bekor" which
chiefly expressed the privileged position of the firstborn among other
children. It need not imply there were actually others. We can see this
from a Greek tomb inscription at Tel el Yaoudieh (cf."Biblica" 11, 1930
369-90) for a mother who died in childbirth: "In the pain of delivering my
firstborn child, destiny brought me to the end of life." For another
epitaph of the same sort, from Leontopolis, see "Biblical Archaeology
Review," Sept/Oct, 1992, p. 56.


Objection 5:.Some early Christian writers think the brothers were true
siblings.

Reply: Meier, who so diligently collects all data against virginity after
the birth of Jesus, mentions only four: (1) Hegesippus, in the second
century. Yet Meier admits on p. 329: "...the testimony is not without its
problems and possible self-contradictions"; (2) Tertullian--yet Meier
admits that it was his "fierce opposition to [the] docetic view of Christ's
humanity' that caused him to say this. In fact, Tertullian even, in the
same vein, argued that the body of Jesus was ugly (On the Flesh of Christ
9)! He was a real extremist, as shown by the fact that even the Montanists
were not severe enough in morality - he formed his own subsect; (3) Meier
also suggests that two passages of St.Irenaeus might imply a denial of
virginity--in one Irenaeus works out in detail the parallel between Adam
and Christ, for the sake of his favorite "recapitulation" theology; in the
other, Irenaeus develops the New Eve theme.--It is hard to see any hint of
a denial of virginity in these passages. Even Meier admits the texts are
not probative; (4) Helvidius in the 4th century.--But these few texts are
little compared to the extensive Patristic support of perpetual virginity.
Cf. "Marian Studies," VIII, 1956, pp. 47-93. In his summary of conclusions,
pp. 331-32, Meier does not even mention these early writers.


Objection 6: Meier, p. 331, says we have the criterion of multiple
attestation", namely, Paul, Mark, John, Josephus and perhaps Luke speak of
the brothers of Jesus.

Reply 6: He is begging the question.He has not proved that any of them mean
true sibling by brother. Meier adds that the natural sense of brother is
sibling--but we have shown in reply 2 above that it need not be so. He also
says that there is no clear case in the NT where brother means anything but
true brother or half-brother. Again he is begging the question: he has not
shown that even one of the texts has to mean sibling.


Conclusion: Meier himself admits, on p. 331, that "all of these arguments
even when taken together cannot produce absolute certitude. "WE add: In Mk
3:20-21 his relatives go out to get Him-younger brothers would not have
done it in that culture - and He was the firstborn. -And at age 12 in
Temple,if there were younger brothers, they would have been along - women
did not have to go. So she would have stayed home with the younger ones.

So we can see that there are no solid evidences in Scripture that Our Lady
had other children. We have just answered all claims. But the decisive
reason is the teaching of the Church. The most ancient creeds all call her
"aei-parthenos" = "Ever-virgin".

Meier seems to have an axe to grind. In his long CBQ article, 1992, pp. 1-
28, he says on the last page that we must ask whether the hierarchy of
truths should not let us accept Protestants into the Catholic Church
without asking them to believe in Our Lady's perpetual virginity. There is
a hierarchy of truths, in that some are more basic than others. But this
does not at all mean we can countenance denial of even one doctrine taught
repeatedly by the Ordinary Magisterium and the most ancient Creeds - and
therefore infallible. Really,if some Protestants seemed to enter the
Church, but did not accept the teaching authority, they would not be really
Catholics, even if they accepted all but one of our teachings. That
authority if really accepted leads them to accept all, not all minus one.

Even Meier,so inclined to deny perpetual virginity,admits (pp. 340-41) that
there is a strong rabbinic tradition that Moses, after his first contact
with God, refrained from knowing his wife. This first appears in Philo, is
taken up the the rabbis. Therefore,if Moses with only an external contact
with God did that way, what of Our Lady who was filled with the divine
presence at the conception of Jesus, and caried divinity itself within her
for nine months?

Actually, Luther himself and Calvin, as Meier admits on p. 319 of his book,
accepted Our Lady's perpetual virginity. Why then does Meier argue so
strongly against it?

Really, Protestants should not, if they were logical, appeal to Scripture
at all for anything - for they have no means whatsoever of determining
which books are inspired. Luther thought that if a book preached
justification by faith strongly, it was inspired, otherwise not. But sadly,
he never proved that was the standard--he, or I could write such a book,
and it would not be inspired. And many books of Scripture do not even
mention justification by faith. Also sadly: Luther did not know what St.
Paul meant by the word faith - on that Cf. the standard Protestant
reference work, "Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible," Supplement, p.
333.
[/quote]

There is no historical or biblical basis to think that Mary's perpetual virginity was ever taken or freely given to Joseph or anyone else.

[MithLuin]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1294880802' post='2199492']
perhaps you and i have different definitions of the word "intimate"
[/quote]

Perhaps we do. I chose the word intentionally, of course. Mary, as the spouse of the Holy Spirit and the mother of Jesus (God), was united with God in a way that is very similar to heaven. Or rather, [i]more[/i] like heaven than anyone else can experience on earth. Her immaculate conception makes that possible, of course, but she experienced the marriage supper of the Lamb in [i]this[/i] life (somehow). These are mystical realities, and it's pretty clear that [i]I[/i] have no practical experience of them. So....in other words, even I don't truly know what I'm saying, though I have some inkling of what I am getting at.

Heaven is, ultimately, perfect union with God, yes? 'Perfect union' implies no barriers and is thus an extremely [i]intimate[/i] relationship. Not sexual, but certainly implying all the vulnerability that the word intimacy evokes. We know God, and are fully known by Him.

There's a reason that 'knowing' someone in the Bible means sleeping with them.

My intention in the post I made above was to draw attention to how Mary would have shared this intimate relationship she had with God with her husband Joseph. After all....heaven isn't just union with God...there is the communion of saints as well. So, Mary and Joseph had a very intimate relationship and knew one another very well, without all the barriers most people (and yes, married couples) erect between one another. Their union was truly a marriage....but it didn't include a sexual relationship. Mostly because...it wasn't necessary. They were past that.

I'm not [i]entirely[/i] comfortable discussing such mystical topics when there is such a high probability of being completely misunderstood. There's probably a better way to express all of this.

[CatherineM]

I didn't have a problem with the word intimate either. Two people living in close quarters, no matter what their relationship, will be on intimate terms. I'm sure there were times when one took care of the other during an illness. I imagine that Mary cared for Joseph when he was dying. There is an intimacy in that.