The virginity of Mary is explicitly taught in the NT in Matthew 1:25 “[Joseph] did not have sexual relations with her (Mary) until she gave birth to a son. And he named him Jesus.” This doctrine was not the topic of much discussion for the first couple of centuries of the early church.
I’ll briefly sum up the history here:
Irenaeus and Justin Martyr do mention that Mary was a virgin at the time of Jesus’ birth, however they never affirm her perpetual virginity.
The pseudephagraphical books of “The Protoevangelium of James,” “The Gospel of Peter,” and “The Infancy Gospel of Thomas” all attest to the “brothers of the Lord” are all Joseph’s children from a previous marriage. The Protoevangelium was likely used to create the stories of Mary found in the Quran, however Muslims reject the concept of Mary’s perpetual virginity.
The pseudephagraphical “Gospel of James” does affirm Mary’s perpetual virginity, and “The Second Apocalypse of James” claims that the brother of the Lord called “James” is actually the child of one named “Theudas” a relative of Jesus.
The Ebionite heretics of this same time (the second century) denied Mary’s perpetual virginity as well as the virgin birth of Jesus altogether.
Ambrose, Archbishop of Milan in 391 wrote a detailed defense of the perpetual virginity of Mary because by that time it had become a hotly debated issue. Under Ambrose denying this doctrine was considered grounds for declaring one a heretic and it became the orthodox position.
At the Second Council of Constantinople in 431 Mary was formally recognized as Aeiparthenos or “ever-virgin.”
And in 649 at the Lateran Council Pope Martin I declared: “The blessed ever-virginal and immaculate Mary conceived, without seed, by the Holy Spirit, and without loss of integrity brought him forth, and after his birth preserved her virginity inviolate.”
Aquinas admits that reason could not prove this to be true, though he held the doctrine and reformers like John Calvin were ambiguous on the perpetual virginity of Mary stating that we don’t know what happened between Mary and Joseph after the birth of Jesus. Notes in the Geneva Bible describe Jesus’ mother as the “ever virgin Mary.”
So, the history is a mixed bag to start out with acceptance of Mary’s continued virginity as the majority view by the fourth century.
For Catholics, I would imagine the historic argument carries a lot of weight. If the church adopted this position then that would seem to settle the issue for them. For me, however, though history can be greatly informative, I want to know what the Bible actually says.
So, what does the Bible say?
References are made in the New Testament to Jesus’ siblings in places such as Mark 3:31-35, Matthew 12:46-50, and Luke 8:19-21.
19 Then his mother and brothers came to him, but they could not meet with him because of the crowd. 20 He was told, “Your mother and your brothers are standing outside, wanting to see you.” 21 But he replied to them, “My mother and my brothers are those who hear and do the word of God.” (Luke 8:19-21)
The Greek term for “Brother” (ἀδελφός) can be used in a generic form. We do this in English as well, just think of Hulk Hogan “yea Brother!”
46 While he was still speaking with the crowds, his mother and brothers were standing outside wanting to speak to him. 47 Someone told him, “Look, your mother and your brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.” 48 He replied to the one who was speaking to him, “Who is my mother and who are my brothers?” 49 Stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! 50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.” (Matthew 12:46-50)
In Matthew’s version, Jesus adds not only “brother” but “sister” (ἀδελφή) as well.
31 His mother and his brothers came, and standing outside, they sent word to him and called him. 32 A crowd was sitting around him and told him, “Look, your mother, your brothers, and your sisters are outside asking for you.” 33 He replied to them, “Who are my mother and my brothers?” 34 Looking at those sitting in a circle around him, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! 35 Whoever does the will of God is my brother and sister and mother.” (Mark 3:31-35)
Mark records the broadest description saying that the crowd included Jesus’ “mother” his “brothers” and his “sisters” as being outside asking for him.
Is “brothers” (ἀδελφοὶ) being used more generally and not actually talking about literal siblings? That is a grammatical possibility, but it seems unlikely to me.
If that were the case, then what is Jesus comparing his followers to? For a metaphor to work it typically needs to be referring to a concrete reality.
Jesus was saying his literal “brothers” and “sisters,” are not his true family… his followers are metaphorically his family.
If Jesus is using “brothers” (as well as “mother” and “sisters”) in a non-literal sense in the first instance, then I’m not sure his metaphor makes any sense. Mary was one of his followers. I don’t think he’d imply she was not part of his real family of followers. The description of the first group is that of biological family, literal Mother, Brothers, and Sisters… but a deeper and more genuine familial bond is found through faith.
The Catholic argument is typically to focus on “brother” (ἀδελφός) in a generic sense as a kind of “brotherhood.” Does this apply to “sister” (ἀδελφή) as well?
I can’t say I’ve read everything in ancient literature to know for sure, but I’ve never seen an example listed by anyone making that argument. It does not seem to me that “brothers” and “sisters” used together is ever used in a generic sense. If Catholics are wanting to make the case that “brothers” and “sisters” is used for more distant relatives or a kind of “brotherhood” of all mankind, let’s see some clear examples of that in ancient Greek literature.
55 Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother called Mary, and his brothers James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas? 56 And his sisters, aren’t they all with us? So where does he get all these things?” (Matthew 13:55-56)
Again we have “brothers” and “sisters” paired together. The term ἀδελφοὶ when used for a more generic group covers both genders. It would be grammatically odd to add the female term ἀδελφαὶ if the intention were to be inclusive of a broad group and not literal brothers and sisters. This text is even more specific by listing some of them by name.
Are the terms ἀδελφοὶ and ἀδελφαὶ used here to talk not about generic groups or literal “brothers” and “sisters” but about close relatives such as cousins? This is another hypothesis by Catholics.
The term ἀνεψιὀς in Greek means “cousin” as in Colossians 4:10 “Aristarchus, my fellow prisoner, sends you greetings, as does Mark, Barnabas’s cousin…” so why would the biblical author not use the correct term?
Maybe, some Catholics will say, they are not technically “cousins” but slightly more distant relatives. This would mean the biblical author is trying to be more general than a cousin so he gets more specific to mention individuals by name and also uses the more specific terms “brothers” and “sisters”? That does not seem like the most likely interpretation at all.
Matthew 13 mentions not only Jesus’ brothers by name, but also his father and his mother Mary specifically.
If Catholics are correct, then the people being quoted trying to argue: “We know who Jesus is because we know his distant relatives”?
That also doesn’t make any sense. “brothers” and “sisters” together with Father and Mother would naturally restrict the scope of the terms’ intended use. Sure “we know his parents and his distant relatives” is possible, but that’s not how you’d most likely write that in Greek.
The whole point of this dialogue is that they know the people who know Jesus best, his close family. It is most naturally referring to Jesus’ siblings, both specific brothers and that he also has female siblings.
It has also been argued that these are Joseph’s children from a previous marriage. This is most likely from the Protoevangelium mentioned above.
If I’m being honest, this sounds like a desperate argument. If Joseph had this many kids before Jesus was born, why did they not go with them to Bethlehem for the census? Why are they not mentioned in the flight to Egypt to escape Herod? Why, in fact, do they seem nonexistent until Jesus is into his 30s? It sounds to me more like a convenience than a convincing argument.
When the Old Testament LXX talks about a distant relatives it doesn’t use the term ἀδελφοὶ in a general sense. The OT typically will say something like “son of their Father’s Brother” if they are referring to a cousin. We can see this in places like Leviticus 25:49 υἱὸς ἀδελφοῦ πατρὸς. This is how Hebrew people would speak, and so to take ἀδελφός and ἀδελφή paired together to mean something metaphorical or to refer to distant relatives would be something unique.
As far as I know, it would be the only place in ancient Greek literature where these words together are used in such a way.
The natural and normal reading is literally “brothers” and “sisters,” Joseph and Mary’s natural children after Jesus was born.
It seems to me that Catholics have a pre-existing desire for Mary to be a perpetual virgin because that is what their church has taught for over 1,500 years. Because they place such a high value on their church’s teaching, putting it on the same level as the Bible, they would rather do hermeneutical cartwheels and change the obvious meaning of words in the Bible to fit their church’s pre-existing belief.
I would rather take the Bible as it is written in the most obvious and straightforward way and then derive my beliefs as best I can from what that says. Sure, there’s room for human error, but I want to get back to what the Bible truly says above all else.
One final thought…
Catholic Priest and New Testament scholar John P. Meier admits that the preponderance of the biblical evidence teaches that Jesus did indeed have siblings. In spite of this fact he still believes in the perpetual virginity of Mary because he is Catholic (Meier, John [Jan 1992]. “The Brothers and Sisters of Jesus In Ecumenical Perspective”. Catholic Biblical Quarterly. 54 (1): 26. JSTOR 43720810)
“I believe it because I’m Catholic and this is what Catholics believe”
It’s up to you what you believe.
I would rather say “I believe this because it’s what the Bible says”
