Talk:Perpetual virginity of Mary

Moved from article

This material is moved from the article in case it has useful matter in it.

Breed|page= 237 |quote= Calvin was likewise less clear-cut than Luther on Mary's perpetual virginity but undoubtedly favored it. Notes in the Geneva Bible (Matt. 1:18, 25; Jesus' 'brothers') defend it, as did Zwingli and the English reformers, often on hazardous grounds (e.g., the established proof text of Ezek. 44:2, to rebut the charge of reliance on tradition instead of Scripture).}}</ref> In his commentary of Luke 1:34, he rejected as "unfounded and altogether absurd" the idea that Mary had made a vow of perpetual virginity, saying that "She would, in that case, have committed treachery by allowing herself to be united to a husband, and would have poured contempt on the holy covenant of marriage; which could not have been done without mockery of God" and adding that there is no evidence of the existence of such vows at the time. Though celibacy or abstinence within marriage life was not unknown in Jewish tradition in response to God's command and participation in His service. In the Commentary on a Harmony of Matthew, Mark & Luke, Calvin rejected the argument that Mary had other children due to the mention in Scripture of brothers of Jesus.

References

Points raised by Rafaelosornio

Rafaelosornio, I'm dealing here with some points you raise in recent edit summaries.

• The teaching is not only Roman Catholic, Orthodox Catholics and other Protestants also believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary. The author talks about what the Roman Catholic Church thinks, not the Orthodox or others. Our source, Bromiley, says Roman Catholic. If you can find another source I'd be happy to change it, but we need to follow sources.
• The sources NEVER say "The problem facing theologians who want to maintain Mary's perpetual virginity is that.... But they do. The source is Maunder in the Oxford Handbook of Mary, p.28: "References to Jesus's brothers and sisters therefore created a problem for later theologians...".
• The source NEVER says "the second Mary, mentioned in John 19:25 as the wife of Clopas" John 19:25 says "his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas" The Oxford Dictionary says "Mary, mother of James and Joses". John 9:25 NEVER says "Mary, mother of James and Joses". Our source here is Livingstone's article in the Oxford Dictionary of Christianity, p.238, where she says: "Jerome held that the Lord's 'brethren' were the sons of Mary, 'the mother of James and Joses,' (Mk 15:40), whom he identified with the wife of Clopas and sister of the Virgin Mary ((Jn 19:25, RV)". In other words, our source is not the gospel of John (that would be original research), but Livingstone.

Please note that all my editing I'm scrupulous about using sources correctly. If you poiunt out errors - and of course I can make mistakes - I'll be happy to correct them. Achar Sva (talk) 07:06, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Rafaelosornio I agree. You should not revert, but use the talk page for discussing changes. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:15, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

The Oxford Dictionary says "Mary, mother of James and Joses" which is in Mark 15:40, not John 19:25 in the modern proposal. You are altering the sources about Jerome and the modern proposal. The source never says "they were the sons of a different Mary entirely, a kinswoman of the Virgin" It says that "they were the sons of 'Mary, the mother of James and Joses', who he identified with the wife of Clopas and sister of the virgin Mary". Please stop adding your original research. Roman Catholic, Orthodox Catholics and other Protestants also believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary. (I have the sources, I will add them now). About the other you are right.Rafaelosornio (talk) 18:43, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Our article says: "Jerome, believing that Joseph, like Mary, must have been a life-long virgin, said that they were the sons of a different Mary entirely, a kinswoman of the Virgin - a modern variation is that the second Mary, mentioned in John 19:25 as the wife of Clopas, was not a kinswoman of Mary's but that Clopas was Joseph's brother." That's from Cross and Livingstone's article on the Brethren of the Lord, p.238. The exact wording in the source is:

...Jerome held that the Lord's 'brethren' were the sons of Mary, 'the mother of James and Joses' (Mk.15:40), whom he identified with the wife of Clopas and sister of the Virgin Mary. Perhaps the syntax is a little complicated for a non-native speaker of English, but this is saying that Jerome held the 'brethren' to be the sons a Mary who was the sister of Mary the mother of Jesus, hence a "different Mary entirely" from the Virgin.Achar Sva (talk) 10:54, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Your intention is to hide at all costs what the source says, that "Jerome held that the Lord's 'brethren' were the sons of Mary, 'the mother of James and Joses' (Mk.15:40), whom he identified with the wife of Clopas and sister of the Virgin Mary" substituting simply saying that "they were children of a kingswoman of the virgin".

While it is true that the "sister of the Virgin Mary" is a kingswoman, saying that "they were the sons of a kinswoman of the Virgin" sounds very ambiguous, because you are hiding that this Mary was the sister of the Virgin, whom Jerome identifies as Mary of Clopas. It is better to keep the source as it is and do not alter it to your liking as you usually do in many articles, not only in this one.Rafaelosornio (talk) 16:19, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

It was Jerome who identified the wife of Clopas as the sister of the Virgin. Achar Sva (talk) 03:32, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Acceptance of perpetual virginity by Lutheran and Anglican theologians

I reverted the lead to the original wording. Richard Losch's wording is: "it (meaning Mary's perpetual virginity) is accepted primarily by the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches, as well as by some Anglican and Lutheran theologians." Acceptance by 'some' theologians (how many?) doesn't imply acceptance in the pews. It can be put in the body of the article, but doesn't belong in the lead.Achar Sva (talk) 03:28, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Achar Sva, my understanding was that the two of us had a de facto understanding of a lede that was the result of WP:COMPROMISE (between the two of us). Please do not make unnecessary changes that obfuscate what the sources state. The perpetual virginity of Mary is clearly codified in the Smalcald Articles (an official Lutheran confession of faith), as the reference states. It is for this reason that I use quote parameters within my references (which you removed). You can either accept the consensus lede that we worked on together (regarding the acceptance by some Lutherans or Anglicans) or I will revert to having the references with the quote parameter present (which ensures that the text meets WP:V). Thanks for your understanding, Anupam^Talk 03:48, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

The Smalcald Articles are no longer operative. But the real point is the word "theologians" - something which is held by a few theologians seems hardly notable enough for a mention in the lead. Achar Sva (talk) 05:44, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

You are mistaken when you claim that the Smalcald Articles are no longer operative; they have always and continue to be a part of the Book of Concord, the doctrinal text adhered to by Lutheran Christianity. Anyways, I will let your recent edit stand, though I still find the addition of the word "theologians" to be unnecessary. With regards, Anupam^Talk 19:01, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Combative tones

Hey, so I noticed that these Catholic articles have combative tones, more or less, and I think the common denominator is @Achar Sva:. I don't know the background, but I think a more diverse editing team is needed than just a single person. --70.24.84.148 (talk) 05:56, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Achar Sva is a highly competent and highly learned editor. He is the most informed Wikipedian in respect to mainstream Bible scholarship. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:13, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not aware that the articles are combative - they simply rely on scholarly sources. Achar Sva (talk) 07:45, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: I do not know him and thus, am not qualified to comment on their qualifications. I am not assuming bad faith on their part. I am just stating what I see. Every article that had this similar tone, involved Achar Sva making major reforms to the layout of the articles. Now, @Achar Sva: could maintain that the tone isn't combative, it's just that everyone prior to him was unscholarly, but I state what I see. I think regardless, everyone can agree that a monopoly on the article is not a good thing --174.88.213.73 (talk) 18:30, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

You will find Catholic articles in the Catholic encyclopedia, not here. Springnuts (talk) 23:35, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Should this be included?

An editor (User:Yonatan Mikhael) has added this paragraph to the section treating arguments and evidence. I'm extremely dubious about its value and relevance - it deals with just one theologian's views, and is sourced from primary sources only (which makes the final sentence original research). Any other views?

"In his second century work Against Heresies, the bishop Irenaeus points out that it was "before Joseph had come together with Mary" to mean "while she therefore remained in virginity"[56] that "she was found with child of the Holy Ghost." Matthew 1:18 He goes on to draw a connection between Adam and Jesus through Mary, stating that while Adam had his substance from "untilled and yet virgin soil" so Jesus, in order to gather up Adam into himself, did rightly receive a birth from Mary, who was similarly "as yet a virgin."[57] To preserve the analogy, something Irenaeus states is very important, if it is unnecessary that the ground remain untilled and therefore virgin it follows that it is also unnecessary that Mary remain a virgin postpartum. Nowhere in this work does Irenaeus explicitly claim anything to the contrary." Achar Sva (talk) 00:07, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

All of the above requires a secondary source.Rafaelosornio (talk) 01:33, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Blomberg vs Cross and Livingstone

User:Rafaelosornio: Craig Blomberg and Cross and Livingstone are saying pretty much the same thing. Here are the texts:

1. Cross and Livingstone, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 2005, pp.237/8: After a brief introductory sentence giving the names of the adelphoi ("brethren of the Lord") comes this: "They may have been (1) Sons of the Virgin Mary and Joseph, born after Christ. This is the most natural inference from the NT..."

2.Craig Blomberg, "From Pentecost to Patmos", 2006, p.387, fn. 1: "[T]he most natural reading from Matthew 1:25 is that Joseph and Mary had other children after Jesus was born, and adelphoi only very rarely means anything other in Koine Greek other than a physical or spiritual sibling."

If you want to keep the line in the article that "the word adelphos only very rarely carries any other meaning than a physical or spiritual sibling" then you'll have to keep Blomberg as the source, because it isn't in Cross and Livingstone. And you can't have "and the most natural inference is that they may have been sons of Joseph and Mary", because this tortures the sense of what Cross and Livingston say: "the most natural inference" is that the adephoi were "[s]ons of the Virgin Mary and Joseph, born after Christ." Achar Sva (talk) 02:37, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Incidentally, I very much doubt that Blomberg is basing his words on Cross and Livingstone. He's a respected scholar in his own right, albeit a rather extreme evangelical (not saying that in a derogatory way), and quite capable of writing his own books. Achar Sva (talk) 02:41, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Reliable sources

User:Octavius2 - I know you're sincerely trying to improve the article, but the Bible is just about the definitive example of what is not a reliable source for Wikipedia. It's a primary source, and if you quote it tyo make a point or argument, you're doing original research. Start this conversation with me and I'll help you find what you want. (WHichj is, the bible passages cited by the Church). Achar Sva (talk) 06:49, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I didn't know about how Primary sources are to be used, but now I do, and so I can accept removing my thick analysis/interpretation. However, I do still think that there should be a place to just list the key Biblical quotes, without any analysis. I'm envisioning something like . . .

"The following key scriptural texts are frequently adduced in support of Mary's perpetual virginity.

• Songs of Songs 4:12 - "A garden locked, . . . [etc.]"
• Ezekiel 44:2 - "This gate shall remain shut; it shall not be . . . [etc.]"
• 2 Samuel 6:6-7 - "Uzzah put out his hand to the ark . . . "
• Rev. 11:19-12:5 - "Then God’s temple in heaven was opened,. . . [etc.]"
• Tobit 3:7-8 - "she had been given to seven husbands, and the evil demon Asmode′us had slain each of them before he had been with her as his wife."

I would even be willing to put it into 2-or-3-column Table-format. Octavius2 (talk) 07:12, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Also, you are going to have to give up that statement that "there is no biblical basis for the idea of her perpetual virginity." That's badly misleading. Legitimate "bases" (plural of basis) don't just include (1) solid bases, within the scripture's literal sense, but also include (2) lose bases, within the scripture's figurative/symbolical/typological sense. And, as I've shown here, there is plenty of the latter: 5 separate verses! Octavius2 (talk) 07:33, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

The thing about sources is that we're meant to use secondary sources - some scholar says X, and we say the same, but in our own words, and put a source tag. (Good idea to make sure that the key words are actually those the source uses). In this case, there'll be good secondary sources in the bibliography (avoid the Protestant ones, naturally - they can be quite fair on many points, but not, I think, on this). Try Maunder's piece in the Oxford Handbook of Mary for starters. And I think you'd be justified in starting a new section, maybe immediately after Doctrine. Incidentally, I'm sure I've seen all those verses mentioned somewhere, but I can't remember where. I'll stop editing now to give you some space (but give me ten minutes to fix a red link that I accidentally created) Achar Sva (talk) 07:31, 12 February 2022 (UTC) Ok, finished, it's all yours. Achar Sva (talk) 07:33, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Re Boisclair and "no statement" or whatever she says: if you feel this is wrong: (1) first, check to see if this really is a reliable source. If Boisclair is an academic, and it was published in, say, the last 20 years, then it's a reliable source and you can't just delete it; (b) if you can't delete it, then search to see if other reliable sources say the opposite; if not, then, well, that's that; (c) think about what the source actually means. In this case, I think Boisclair means that there's no DIRECT statement, which would be true (no such statement in the New Testament); but, the Church holds that there are these inferred statements. So that makes Boisclair the idea starting point for the material you want to add. And now I'm off to watch TV. Achar Sva (talk) 08:33, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree she's counts as a "reliable source", so you (or eventually I) can and will probably re-add it, but then it's going to be embarassingly contradicted by my chart, right above it, which shows Church Fathers' discovery of "Basis" within the symbolism of the Old Testament. What she actually meant? I agree with you that she was trying to say that there's "no DIRECT statement" (our Catholic word would be-- no 'literal' statement) of Mary's Ever-Virginity within the New Testament, as nearly her whole discussion was dissecting the New Testament alone. However, she did trespass briefly into the Old Testament, in her (in my opinion) irrelevant foray into "Virgin Israel," which proves nothing, and so she ultimately erred by implying and claiming (in your "No Biblical basis" quote) that she had also adequately surveyed the Old Testament, too, when, in reality she hadn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Octavius2 (talk • contribs) 15:48, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Octavius2 - "Although Mary's perpetual virginity is nowhere attested in the literal sense of scripture, yet, several Church Fathers would ultimately see it symbolically prefigured in several Old Testament verses' typological senses". I think this sentence that you added is correct, but it really needs a source (meaning a tag tracing it to a book by a scholar), otherwise it can be deleted by someone with some comment about being original research. But I like what you're doing. Achar Sva (talk) 08:31, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Dates for Mary's life

The usual date for the birth of Jesus is 4 BC. It's also generally agreed that Mary would have been no younger than 13 at the time, as 12 was the usual age of marriage. That would mean Mary would have been born no earlier than 17 BC. And that in turn would mean she would have died about 53 AD, assuming she lived to be seventy. The Gospel of James was written about a century later, around 150. Is this right?Achar Sva (talk) 07:25, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Anne Catherine Emmerich says that she was age 14 at the Annunciation, and that she lived about twice 6 years after his death. Octavius2 (talk) 07:45, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Sounds about right to me.Achar Sva (talk) 08:10, 12 February 2022 (UTC)