|
|
"They thought, then, that He was the son of Joseph and Mary. But some say, basing it on a
tradition in the Gospel according to Peter, as it is entitled, or "The Book of James,"
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."
(Origen)
|
|
|
Mary In The Bible Part Two:
The Three Scenarios of The Brethren of The Lord
Brian Culliton
After the wedding feast in Cana, Mary is sparsely mentioned. When she is mentioned,
however, it is usually in a context that seems to counter Catholic doctrine concerning
her. For example: Catholic doctrine states that Mary remained a virgin her entire life,
but one particular gospel event seems to refute that claim altogether.
In the 13 chapter of Matthews's gospel, we read how the Jews in Jesus' own homeland were
astonished at His teaching authority and knowledge. They responded to His teaching by
saying:
"Is this not the carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mary? And His brothers James,
Joses, Simon, and Judas? And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this
Man get all these things?" (Mat. 13:55-56)
On the surface it looks as though Jesus had brothers and sisters. But if Catholics were
to assume this from reading the text, they would have to somehow rectify it with what they
were taught about Mary's perpetual virginity. To put their minds at ease, Catholic
apologists are standing by with at least three alternate scenarios.
Scenario One:
Mary and Joseph adopted other children.
Most Catholics probably never heard of this one, but it does exist though not very popular.
Scenario Two:
The reference to brothers and sisters refers to Joseph's children from a previous marriage.
Catholic apologists don't typically use this argument because it is based on a writing that
is widely known to be false. The document is called "The Protoevangelium of James" or
"The Infancy Gospel of James" and it immerged in the early church - probably in the second
century. The document's author claims to be James and the stepbrother of the Lord. Pretty
much all scholars believe this can't be true because of the author's dependence on the
Gospels of Matthew and Luke. Therefore, some Catholic apologists have stopped giving it
much credence.
Historical writings, however, suggest that the Infancy Gospel of James may be the very
reason for people believing that Mary remained a virgin all her life. By the middle of
the third century the belief that Mary remained a virgin seemed to be growing. Origen, a
teacher in the early church of the third century, wrote a commentary on the Gospel of
Matthew. In it, he wrote the following concerning the brethren of the Lord.
"They thought, then, that He was the son of Joseph and Mary. But some say, basing it on a
tradition in the Gospel according to Peter, as it is entitled, or "The Book of James,"
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."
This is very interesting for a three reasons:
1. It seems to indicate that most Christians didn't believe that Mary remained a virgin
after Christ was born.
2. Whether Mary remained a virgin or not appears to be a point of little concern because
there were no doctrines concerning her at that time.
3. Those who believed she remained a virgin, based their belief entirely on the Infancy
Gospel of James, which we know to be fiction.
Given this evidence that the Infancy Gospel of James is the basis for the belief that Mary
remained a virgin and the fact that most Catholic apologists agree that the writing is not
credible, must lead one to believe that the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity is built
upon a very unstable foundation.
Scenario Three:
There was no distinction between the word "brother" and the word "cousin" in the Hebrew language.
I refer to this scenario as "the last resort." This is the latest and most popular
argument for supporting Mary's perpetual virginity. It amounts to nothing more than introducing doubt
in order to support the doctrine. The argument is extremely weak and based on the notion
that all the books of the New Testament were written from a purely Jewish perspective.
Catholic apologists admit that there is a distinction between brother and cousin in the
Greek language - the language in which the New Testament was written - but fail to admit
that the writers would have likely used the distinction to eliminate confusion.
Conclusion:
To me the evidence from Scripture that Mary had other children after Jesus was born is
obvious. But whether or not others believe the same thing I do is no concern to me so
long as they follow Christ. The Catholic Church, however, has exhaled Mary in such a way as
to make her an object of worship. This is a very dangerous thing to any Christian's
relationship with Christ.
Read part One of this article: The Wedding Feast in Cana
Go to part Three of this article: Behold Thy Mother
|
|
|
