Were Jesus's brothers born of another woman?

[BreadOfLife]

If you say so. To me it still seems like you’re that far and stopped. But whatever.

Your argument makes no sense. It’s not how English or Greek or Hebrew or Aramaic works. The sentence is not confusing at all. The biggest confusion is if she was still a virgin after the angel talked with her and the time she got pregnant with Jesus. Being conceived by the Holy Spirit is the confusing aspect.

What’s not confusing is this sentence.

Joseph did not have sex with her until after Jesus was born. Until is presenting a time frame. The time is after the birth of Jesus. The event that did not happen until then is Joseph consummating their marriage. Essentially all marriages were consummated.

Strong's Greek: 2193. ἕως (heós) -- until, till, as far as, up to

It’s being used the same in genesis 4:1. The Greek and Hebrew equivalents.

Even in 1 Samuel 15:35 it means the same thing.

Until the day Samuel died, he did not go to see Saul again, though Samuel mourned for him. And the LORD regretted that he had made Saul king over Israel.

Until the day he died is the time frame. What did Samuel not do until he died. He did not visit Saul. Nothing there is denoting a change in status. It’s a time frame leading up to death. Joseph’s timeframe was leading up to the birth of Jesus.

If the time frame in Samuel said instead…. Until Samuel’s bath he did it see Saul would have made the time frame from that point until the bath, implying after the bath he did. Death signifies the end of the time frame.

Otherwise, the verse in Matthew 1:25 would make no sense. It would have said Joseph never knew her until his or her death.

And what do you do with the death and burial of Moses? Even though Moses was buried by God in the valley of Moab after his death - Deut. 34:6 explicitly states:
“And he buried him in the valley of the land of Moab over against Phogor: and no man hath known of his sepulchre UNTIL this present day.”

Did they find his grave after this??

Also, Acts 2:34-35 (also see Psalm 110:1, Matt 22:44) indicates:
“For David did not go up into heaven, but he himself said: 'The Lord said to my Lord, "Sit at my right hand UNTIL I make your enemies your footstool."'

Does the Son leave the Father’s right side after his ebonies are vanquished??

In the Scriptural languages, just as “brother” doesn’t always indicate a uterine sibling - “until” doesn’t always mean that something happens afterward.

 

[RedFan]

Frankly, it’s the total absence of Scriptural reference to the “children of Mary” that is the greater evidence of her perpetual virginity.

Slight correction: absence of reference to other children of Mary is not evidence of her virginity. One can have sex without having children. (I have one child. I've had sex with my wife a thousand times.)

 

[Skovand]

And what do you do with the death and burial of Moses? Even though Moses was buried by God in the valley of Moab after his death - Deut. 34:6 explicitly states:
“And he buried him in the valley of the land of Moab over against Phogor: and no man hath known of his sepulchre UNTIL this present day.”

Did they find his grave after this??

Also, Acts 2:34-35 (also see Psalm 110:1, Matt 22:44) indicates:
“For David did not go up into heaven, but he himself said: 'The Lord said to my Lord, "Sit at my right hand UNTIL I make your enemies your footstool."'

Does the Son leave the Father’s right side after his ebonies are vanquished??

In the Scriptural languages, just as “brother” doesn’t always indicate a uterine sibling - “until” doesn’t always mean that something happens afterward.

I don’t have to do anything with it. The again….. the time frame is from sometimes after he’s buried until that time, they’ve not found it.

I am not sure why you don’t understand this. It’s so irrational. I don’t understand how you’re caught up on this.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Slight correction: absence of reference to other children of Mary is not evidence of her virginity. One can have sex without having children. (I have one child. I've had sex with my wife a thousand times.)

You’re right – this fact ALONE is not sufficient evidence.
However, when coupled with 2000 years of constant, living Tradition, the case is bolstered.

The doctrine that Mary had other children isn't even as old as the Protestant Revolt.
As I indicated earlier - your Protestant Fathers ALL rejected this idea.

 

[BreadOfLife]

I don’t have to do anything with it. The again….. the time frame is from sometimes after he’s buried until that time, they’ve not found it.

I am not sure why you don’t understand this. It’s so irrational. I don’t understand how you’re caught up on this.

This isn’t about a “time frame”.
It’s about whether the use of “until” demands a subsequent action or event. ALL of the verses I submitted illustrate that it doesn’t.

 

[RedFan]

You’re right – this fact ALONE is not sufficient evidence.
However, when coupled with 2000 years of constant, living Tradition, the case is bolstered.

The doctrine that Mary had other children isn't even as old as the Protestant Revolt.
As I indicated earlier - your Protestant Fathers ALL rejected this idea.

Just who do you think are MY Protestant Fathers? I absolutely believe that 2000 tradition handed down from the original apostles is authoritative. I just don't see evidence of the original apostles weighing in on Mary's perpetual virginity one way or the other. Maybe you can educate me. What's the earliest reference you can find to Mary's perpetual virginity?

 

[BreadOfLife]

Just who do you think are MY Protestant Fathers? I absolutely believe that 2000 tradition handed down from the original apostles is authoritative. I just don't see evidence of the original apostles weighing in on Mary's perpetual virginity one way or the other. Maybe you can educate me. What's the earliest reference you can find to Mary's perpetual virginity?

We’ve had this “Tradition” argument before.

The fact is that you DON’T adhere to Tradition. If you did – you would know ORAL Tradition and Scripture are TWO different expressions of God’s word and will. One is written and one is spoken – yet they are BOTH authoritative.

A few examples of Oral Tradition . . .

Matt. 2:23 - the prophecy "He shall be a Nazarene" is ORAL TRADITION. It is not found in the Old Testament.

Matt 23:2 - Jesus relies on the ORAL TRADITION of acknowledging Moses' seat of authority (which passed from Moses to Joshua to the Sanhedrin). This is not recorded in the Old Testament

Jude 9 - Jude relies on the ORAL TRADITION of the Archangel Michael's dispute with Satan over Moses' body. This is not found in the Old Testament.

Jude 14-15 - Jude relies on the ORAL TRADITION of Enoch's prophecy which is not recorded in the Old Testament.

 

[RedFan]

We’ve had this “Tradition” argument before.

The fact is that you DON’T adhere to Tradition. If you did – you would know ORAL Tradition and Scripture are TWO different expressions of God’s word and will. One is written and one is spoken – yet they are BOTH authoritative.

A few examples of Oral Tradition . . .

Matt. 2:23 - the prophecy "He shall be a Nazarene" is ORAL TRADITION. It is not found in the Old Testament.

Matt 23:2 - Jesus relies on the ORAL TRADITION of acknowledging Moses' seat of authority (which passed from Moses to Joshua to the Sanhedrin). This is not recorded in the Old Testament

Jude 9 - Jude relies on the ORAL TRADITION of the Archangel Michael's dispute with Satan over Moses' body. This is not found in the Old Testament.

Jude 14-15 - Jude relies on the ORAL TRADITION of Enoch's prophecy which is not recorded in the Old Testament.

I agree with most everything you say here -- except the accusation that I don't adhere to tradition, of course. Oral Tradition and Scripture are indeed both authoritative. (Didn't I already say so?) The trick with the oral tradition is figuring out what it is, in it original and unadulterated form -- something that is easier to do with writings (although even that poses challenges, since we don't have any of the originals)

When did the oral tradition of Mary's perpetual virginity start? Find me the first reference to it, please.

 

[Verily]

It does say, Jesus was conceived in the womb in Nazareth

Luke 1:26 And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, to a virgin named Mary Luke 1:31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.

Then after he was older he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth

Mat 2:23 And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene. G3480

A Nazarene. G3480
=Nazarite = "one separated"

As Jesus was conceived in Nazareth, later on to dwell in Nazareth is shown respects of a child who would be at conception to death a Nazarite (or as a Nazarene as the same is called in Mat 2:23) being one who is separated as the definition includes, for example in Judges

Judges 13:7 But he said unto me, Behold, thou shalt conceive, and bear a son; and now drink no wine nor strong drink, neither eat any unclean thing: for the child shall be a Nazarite to God from the womb to the day of his death.

Whereas it shows Jesus is to be called a Nazarene (or Nazarite as the definition allows) from the the womb unto his death. I just see Jesus of Nazareth mentioned.

Mark 16:6 And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him.

In the midst of this before he was born there was a world tax and each had to go to his own city and so it says

Luke 2:4-6 And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:) To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.

So he was conceived in Nazareth and born in Bethlehem the city of David.

Luke 2:6 And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered.

Mic 5:2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.

Luke 2:11 For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.

Then many years later, right after John the baptist was sent that Messiah should be revealed to Israel, they understood the following even by the prophets

John 1:45 Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.

John 1:49 Nathanael answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel.

Acts 2:22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know

In one, it speaks of a Nazarite from the womb, whereas Jesus was conceived in the womb of Mary in Nazareth (location). Whereas here, it speaks of him being called a Nazarene pertaining to the city where he actually dwelt

Mat 2:23 And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene. G3480

But not the city where he was miraculously conceived in the womb

Luke 1:26 And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, to a virgin named Mary Luke 1:31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.

Regardless, Jesus was both conceived in the womb in the same place he come to later dwell, and was to be called a Nazarene (per Mat 2:23) which is defined there as either Nazarite = "one separated" and can apply to one who dwells in Nazareth, either case.

Same here of Paul but here they call it a "sect" of the Nazarenes

Acts 24:5 For we have found this man a pestilent fellow, and a mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes:

But Paul only mentions being separated "from" his mothers womb and called by his grace and God revealing his Son "in him" in Gal 1:15-16. Theres a little here and there on this

 

[Verily]

What traditions are spoken of in 2 Thes 2:15 because he does mention they have already been taught whether by word or their epistle here

2Thes 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

Paul mentions a tradition here but its more a patern of behavior and less "the ringing of bells" sort of stuff

Starting here

2 Thes 3:6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.

Speaking of a brother that "walketh disorderly", and "not after the tradition" which he received of us

That one should follow Paul (who set himself out as an example when he was with them)

As he goes on to say

2 Thes 3:7 For yourselves know how ye ought to follow us: for we behaved not ourselves disorderly among you

This is speaking of a walk, one that either "walketh orderly" (as Paul) verses one that 'walketh disorderly" (as one we ought to withdrawl ourselves from). And this having to do with ones behavior, which is after the tradition they received of them.

2 Thes 3:10 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.

What he commanded in word (when he was with them) is now written in this epistle again because he is now away from them.

2 Thes 3:11 For we hear (being away from them now) that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies.

Again, so these are those who are "walking disorderly" and "not after the tradition" they received of them when they were with them

And TO THESE that "are such" (or those walking disorderly among them, and not after the tradition they received of him Paul simply says,

2 Thes 3:12 Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread.

And Paul ends with

2 Thes 3:14 And if any man obey not our word by "this epistle", note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed.

2 Thes 3:15 Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.

He seems to be saying that this tradtion is one after a behavior, and what not to do. It pretty much sums up what to do if a brother is a leech of sorts, and we are instructed not have company with him so he might feel ashamed, but dont treat him as an enemy.

Thats not the kind of thing you think of when you think "traditional traditions" of men.

 

[BreadOfLife]

I agree with most everything you say here -- except the accusation that I don't adhere to tradition, of course. Oral Tradition and Scripture are indeed both authoritative. (Didn't I already say so?) The trick with the oral tradition is figuring out what it is, in it original and unadulterated form -- something that is easier to do with writings (although even that poses challenges, since we don't have any of the originals)

When did the oral tradition of Mary's perpetual virginity start? Find me the first reference to it, please.

I can’t pin-point a date for you because that’s NOT how Tradition works. Sacred Tradition developed from the teachings of the Apostles. This is evidenced by Pauls instruction to the Thessalonians:

2 Thess 2:15
"Stand firm and hold fast to the Traditions you were taught, whether by an ORAL STATEMENT or by a LETTER from us."

The “Us” he is referring to is the Church and its God-given Authority (Matt. 16:18-19, Matt. 18:14-18, Luke 10:16, John 16:12-15, John 20:21-23).

Sacred Tradition is carried on through the Church. Jesus told the leaders of His Church the following:
Luke 10:16
Whoever listens to YOU listens to ME. Whoever rejects YOU rejects ME. And whoever rejects ME rejects the ONE who sent ME."

I trust the Church, which Paul refers to as the “pillar and foundation of truth” (1 Tim. 3:15) and the "Fullness" of Christ (Eph 1:22-23).

Once again - it's glaringly apparent that you don't have a clue to what Sacred Tradition is . . .

 

[RedFan]

I can’t pin-point a date for you because that’s NOT how Tradition works.

Once again - it's glaringly apparent that you don't have a clue to what Sacred Tradition is . . .

I know how tradition works (do you enjoy denigrating me in particular, or is everyone who challenges you getting the same assault?). That's not my question of you. Please read more carefully. I will ask again. What is the first written reference OF WHICH YOU ARE AWARE about Mary's perpetual virginity.

Let me be clear. I am NOT asking you whether the oral tradition of Mary's perpetual vrginity is 2,000 years old, or 1,900, or 1800 or 1700 or 1500 years old. I am looking for the first WRITTEN reference to this doctrine. Can you help me with that or not?

 

[BreadOfLife]

I know how tradition works (do you enjoy denigrating me in particular, or is everyone who challenges you getting the same assault?). That's not my question of you. Please read more carefully. I will ask again. What is the first written reference OF WHICH YOU ARE AWARE about Mary's perpetual virginity.

Let me be clear. I am NOT asking you whether the oral tradition of Mary's perpetual vrginity is 2,000 years old, or 1,900, or 1800 or 1700 or 1500 years old. I am looking for the first WRITTEN reference to this doctrine. Can you help me with that or not?

Once again – ORAL Tradition does not require written documentation.
Either you accept it or you don’t – and it appears that you don’t.

However, the earliest reference that I know of is the Protoevangelium of James (circa 150 AD).

 

[RedFan]

Once again – ORAL Tradition does not require written documentation.
Either you accept it or you don’t – and it appears that you don’t.

However, the earliest reference that I know of is the Protoevangelium of James (circa 150 AD).

I see no such reference to perpetual virginity in the Protoevengelium of James. Point it out, please.

 

[BreadOfLife]

I see no such reference to perpetual virginity in the Protoevengelium of James. Point it out, please.

As I indicated before - the Protoevangelium of Jame is a 2nd century document that explains Mary’s early life and how the birth of Jesus came about.

It is this document that gives us the names of Mary’s parents, Joachim and Anne. It explains how Mary was a consecrated virgin in the Temple, like the prophetess Anna (uke 2:36–38). This coincides with Mary’s bewilderment at the news that she was going to give birth.

Luke 1:34:
Then Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I do not know a man?”

Mary was a betrothed girl who knew about marital relations.
She didn’t say, “How can this be, since I HAVE not known a man?”
She said, “How can this be, since I DO not know a man?”

She was stating her intention to remain a virgin and was puzzled by Gabriel’s announcement that she was to have a child. She knew that God was aware of her intentions. Her bewilderment and the words “I do not know”, as opposed to “I have not known”, corroborates the Protoevangelium which states that she had no intention of having marital relations.

According to the text, Joseph was an older widower who was chosen by lot to marry her as a protestor/guardian. It also makes the case that the names “brethren” of Jesus were Joseph’s children from an earlier marriage.

According to patristics scholar, Johannes Quasten:
“The principal aim of the whole writing [Protoevangelium of James] is to prove the perpetual and inviolate virginity of Mary before, in, and after the birth of Christ” (Patrology, 1:120–1).

 

[RedFan]

As I indicated before - the Protoevangelium of Jame is a 2nd century document that explains Mary’s early life and how the birth of Jesus came about.

It is this document that gives us the names of Mary’s parents, Joachim and Anne. It explains how Mary was a consecrated virgin in the Temple, like the prophetess Anna (uke 2:36–38). This coincides with Mary’s bewilderment at the news that she was going to give birth.

Luke 1:34:
Then Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I do not know a man?”

Mary was a betrothed girl who knew about marital relations.
She didn’t say, “How can this be, since I HAVE not known a man?”
She said, “How can this be, since I DO not know a man?”

She was stating her intention to remain a virgin and was puzzled by Gabriel’s announcement that she was to have a child. She knew that God was aware of her intentions. Her bewilderment and the words “I do not know”, as opposed to “I have not known”, corroborates the Protoevangelium which states that she had no intention of having marital relations.

According to the text, Joseph was an older widower who was chosen by lot to marry her as a protestor/guardian. It also makes the case that the names “brethren” of Jesus were Joseph’s children from an earlier marriage.

According to patristics scholar, Johannes Quasten:
“The principal aim of the whole writing [Protoevangelium of James] is to prove the perpetual and inviolate virginity of Mary before, in, and after the birth of Christ” (Patrology, 1:120–1).

With all due respect (if any) to Quasten, there is nothing in the Protoevangelium of James stating that Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Christ. Is there any other early writing you'd like to point to on this subject? It might help us identify how early this oral tradition really was -- since a mention of the tradition would give us an indication that, at least, it arose earlier than that mention.

 

[BreadOfLife]

With all due respect (if any) to Quasten, there is nothing in the Protoevangelium of James stating that Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Christ. Is there any other early writing you'd like to point to on this subject? It might help us identify how early this oral tradition really was -- since a mention of the tradition would give us an indication that, at least, it arose earlier than that mention.

That just it – Oral Tradition does NOT require written documentation.

Your refusal to accept this Tradition tells me that you simply don’t believe in Oral Tradition. You don't even understand what it is.
The Protoevangelium states that Mary was a consecrated virgin of the Temple. This is a sacred vow – NOT a passing fancy.

Often times in the Early Church, Traditions and doctrines were written about to answer challenges. Many Early Church Fathers wrote about this Tradition when questions and challenges arose in their own time.

Origen
The Book [the Protoevangelium] of James [records] that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honor of Mary in virginity to the end, so that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word . . . might not know intercourse with a man after the Holy Spirit came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the first fruit among men of the purity which consists in perpetual chastity, and Mary was among women. For it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the first fruit of virginity (Commentary on Matthew 2:17 [A.D. 248]).

Athanasius
Let those, therefore, who deny that the Son is by nature from the Father and proper to his essence deny also that He took true human flesh from the ever-virgin Mary (Discourses against the Arians 2:70 [A.D. 360]).

Epiphanius
We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of all things, both visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God . . . who for us men and for our salvation came down and took flesh, that is, was born perfectly of the holy ever-virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit (The Man Well-Anchored 120 [A.D. 374]).

Jerome
But as regards Victorinus, I assert what has already been proven from the gospel—that he [Victorinus] spoke of the brethren of the Lord not as being sons of Mary but brethren in the sense I have explained, that is to say, brethren in point of kinship, not by nature. (Against Helvidius: The Perpetual Virginity of Mary 19 [A.D. 383]).

Didymus the Blind
It helps us to understand the terms "firstborn" and "only begotten" when the Evangelist tells that Mary remained a virgin "until she brought forth her firstborn son" [Matt. 1:25]; for neither did Mary, who is to be honored and praised above all others, marry anyone else, nor did she ever become the mother of anyone else, but even after childbirth she remained always and forever an immaculate virgin" (The Trinity 3:4 [A.D. 386]).

Ambrose of Milan
Imitate her [Mary], holy mothers, who in her only dearly beloved Son set forth so great an example of maternal virtue; for neither have you sweeter children [than Jesus], nor did the virgin seek the consolation of being able to bear another son (Letters 63:111 [A.D. 388])

Augustine
In being born of a virgin who chose to remain a virgin even before she knew who was to be born other, Christ wanted to approve virginity rather than to impose it. And he wanted virginity to be of free choice even in that woman in whom he took upon himself the form of a slave (Holy Virginity 4:4 [A.D. 401]).

 

[RedFan]

That just it – Oral Tradition does NOT require written documentation.

I agree 100%. Written documentation is not required.

Your refusal to accept this Tradition tells me that you simply don’t believe in Oral Tradition. You don't even understand what it is.

I accept oral tradition. If it is original with the apostles. (That's always the question, isn't it?) But you and I have different tests for whether oral tradition is really that old. I like to have verification from secondary sources.

The Protoevangelium states that Mary was a consecrated virgin of the Temple.

It does not. Rather, it states that at age 12 Mary was betrothed to Joseph by the high priest Zacharias. Had she been a consecrated virgin of the Temple by eternal vow, Zacharias could never have done that.

 

[Johann]

The Protoevangelium states that Mary was a consecrated virgin of the Temple. This is a sacred vow – NOT a passing fancy.

Incorrect-

Non-canonical Nature of the Protoevangelium of James
The Protoevangelium of James is an apocryphal text, written around the mid-2nd century CE, long after the apostolic era. While it provides interesting early Christian reflections on Mary, it is not considered inspired Scripture and often includes theological and cultural embellishments not grounded in historical fact.

Its reliability is highly questionable for establishing historical doctrines or practices.

No Evidence of "Temple Virgins" in Jewish Tradition

The idea of consecrated virgins serving in the Temple is not supported by Jewish historical or scriptural evidence. The Jewish priesthood was strictly male, and the role of women in Temple worship did not include lifelong vows of virginity. Women typically supported Temple activities as part of their family roles (e.g., offering sacrifices, participating in festivals) rather than as consecrated individuals.

This concept appears to be influenced by later Christian and possibly Greco-Roman cultural ideas of virginity, not first-century Jewish practice.

Canonical Scripture's Portrayal of Mary

The New Testament does not depict Mary as a consecrated virgin of the Temple. Instead, it presents her as a young Jewish woman betrothed to Joseph (Luke 1:27). Betrothal in Jewish culture was a commitment to marriage and family life, and there is no indication in Scripture that Mary had taken a vow of lifelong virginity prior to the Annunciation. Her question to the angel ("How can this be, since I am a virgin?" in Luke 1:34) reflects her immediate state rather than a lifelong vow.


If Mary had taken a sacred vow of virginity, it raises questions about why she entered into a betrothal with Joseph, as Jewish betrothals were typically for the purpose of marriage and bearing children.

The Protoevangelium attempts to resolve this tension by claiming Joseph was an elderly guardian chosen to protect her vow, but this explanation is not found in Scripture and lacks historical plausibility within Jewish marriage customs.

The Church Fathers and the Development of the Idea
Early Church Fathers, such as Jerome, later emphasized Mary's perpetual virginity, but they did so based on theological reflection rather than direct evidence from Scripture or early Jewish traditions.

The Protoevangelium's account may have influenced later Christian thought, but it remains speculative and secondary to canonical sources.

In conclusion, while the Protoevangelium of James presents an intriguing narrative about Mary, it lacks both historical and scriptural support for the claim that she was a consecrated Temple virgin. The idea seems to reflect later Christian piety rather than authentic Jewish practices or the testimony of the New Testament.

And that's that.

J.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Incorrect-

Non-canonical Nature of the Protoevangelium of James
The Protoevangelium of James is an apocryphal text, written around the mid-2nd century CE, long after the apostolic era. While it provides interesting early Christian reflections on Mary, it is not considered inspired Scripture and often includes theological and cultural embellishments not grounded in historical fact.

Apparently, you haven’t been reading the posts.

I NEVER made the argument that this was inspired Scripture. I referred to it as a 2nd century document.

Its reliability is highly questionable for establishing historical doctrines or practices.

No Evidence of "Temple Virgins" in Jewish Tradition

The idea of consecrated virgins serving in the Temple is not supported by Jewish historical or scriptural evidence. The Jewish priesthood was strictly male, and the role of women in Temple worship did not include lifelong vows of virginity. Women typically supported Temple activities as part of their family roles (e.g., offering sacrifices, participating in festivals) rather than as consecrated individuals.

This concept appears to be influenced by later Christian and possibly Greco-Roman cultural ideas of virginity, not first-century Jewish practice.

WRONG.

The Protoevangelium’s claim that Mary was a consecrated servant/virgin of the Temple is not without precedent.

Samuel was dedicated by his mother (1 Sam. 1:11) to serve in the Temple. The prophetess Anna, who was a widow, also lived and served at the Temple (Luke 2:35-40). This way of life is what Paul is talking about as a more excellent wat of serving God (1 Cor. 7:27-28; 32-35).

Canonical Scripture's Portrayal of Mary

The New Testament does not depict Mary as a consecrated virgin of the Temple. Instead, it presents her as a young Jewish woman betrothed to Joseph (Luke 1:27). Betrothal in Jewish culture was a commitment to marriage and family life, and there is no indication in Scripture that Mary had taken a vow of lifelong virginity prior to the Annunciation. Her question to the angel ("How can this be, since I am a virgin?" in Luke 1:34) reflects her immediate state rather than a lifelong vow.

First of all – I never sad that her Scripture mentions her service in the Temple. We are discussing the Protoevangelium.

Secondly - Mary didn’t say “… I am a virgin.”
She said: “How can this be since I DO NT KNOW a man” (Luke 1:34).

Mary was a betrothed girl who knew about marital relations.
She didn’t say “How can this be, since I have not known a man?”
She said, “How can this be, since I do not know a man?”

She was stating her intention to remain a virgin and was puzzled by the Angel’s announcement that she was to have a child. She knew that God was aware of her intentions. Her bewilderment and the words “I do not know”, as opposed to “I have not known”, points to the idea that she had NO intention of having marital relations.

If Mary had taken a sacred vow of virginity, it raises questions about why she entered into a betrothal with Joseph, as Jewish betrothals were typically for the purpose of marriage and bearing children.

The Protoevangelium addresses the why Mary was betrothed to Joseph. He entered the betrothal as a protector – a guardian, and was chosen because he was older.

And their situation was ANYTHING but “typical” There is nothing typical about a virgin giving birth . . .

The Protoevangelium attempts to resolve this tension by claiming Joseph was an elderly guardian chosen to protect her vow, but this explanation is not found in Scripture and lacks historical plausibility within Jewish marriage customs.

The Church Fathers and the Development of the Idea
Early Church Fathers, such as Jerome, later emphasized Mary's perpetual virginity, but they did so based on theological reflection rather than direct evidence from Scripture or early Jewish traditions.

WRONG.

NOT all of the ECF’s relied solely on Scripture to explain Mary’s Perpetual Virginity. Some, like Origen and Hilary of Poitiers pointed to the idea that the “brethren” of Jesus were actually the children of Joseph, from a previous marriage.

The Protoevangelium's account may have influenced later Christian thought, but it remains speculative and secondary to canonical sources.

In conclusion, while the Protoevangelium of James presents an intriguing narrative about Mary, it lacks both historical and scriptural support for the claim that she was a consecrated Temple virgin. The idea seems to reflect later Christian piety rather than authentic Jewish practices or the testimony of the New Testament.

And that's that.

J.

And as I’ve shown – your claims are filled with as much opinion as fact.

So - that is NOT that . . .