Talk:Perpetual virginity of Mary/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

MacCulloch Book

Hi All, The ref to the phrase "This argumentation was repeated, not only by later Catholic theologians, but by the magisterial Protestant Reformers as well" is given as "D. MacCulloch, The Reformation: a History (Penguin Books, 2003) pp. 614.". From a couple of sites I have the title as "Reformation : Europe's House Divided". There is a book "The Reformation: a History" but it is a different book, and under 300 pages, so I guess that the error in the ref is with the title, and I will amend accordingly. Springnuts (talk) 21:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Biblical Passages

In the section currently called Biblical Passages and their Historical Interpretation the Protoevangelium of James is mentioned or quoted twice. Clearly, it doesn't belong. While it is called apocryphal, its very presence in this section is (and has been for a long time) wrong and misleading. It has far less (="no") value for helping to determine the Biblical background or basis of the doctrine, and ought to come out or move to a different section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LindsayH (talk • contribs) 06:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC) Whoops, forgot to sign, now i see some bot did it. Oh well. Cheers, Lindsay (talk) 06:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Good point - it overlapped with the section on 'Antiquity', so I have moved it there and merged the two paragraphs. It is now better, I think, but perhaps unwieldy. Springnuts (talk) 22:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Unwieldy? Maybe, but it flows well. Good work. The other mention, since it illustrates an eary interpretation of adelphoi can surely stay. I slightly twiddled with the language, so i hope it's good and clear. Cheer, Lindsay (talk) 13:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Evangelical position

I think it might be worth a mention that this position is rejected by mainstream evangelical Christianity today. 78.145.39.64 (talk) 17:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Cites for denominational teachings

Previously the claim that this was a doctrine of the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox churches was cited all by a reference to the Cathechism of the "Catholic Church". Obviously this cite is only sufficient for the RCC at best, and therefore the cite was moved to merely the Roman Catholic part of that claim, and a citation needed was added next to both Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox.

A cite recently was added next to the Eastern Orthodox part, but the link did not work so it has been removed and the citation needed put back up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.231.188.215 (talk) 04:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

No cite was provided as proof of the universal teachings of the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox, so the claim was changed and qualified. Deusveritasest (talk) 23:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The first sentence in the current version of this page states that this is a dogma of the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox Churches. I believe this is incorrect. I think it is a dogma of the Roman Catholic Church, but I believe it is only a doctrine, not a dogma, of the Eastern Orthodox Church. I have no idea where it stands among the Oriental Orthodox, so I hesitate to edit this sentence.Orthodox hillbilly (talk) 04:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

criticism

I'm not very experienced at this but I've noticed that this page is very imbalanced. There is no representation for modern interpretations other than those in support of this doctrine. Can we get a criticism section at the very least? Many historical interpretations are stated which are easily countered by a modern interpretation but there is no section for this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.229.192.217 (talk) 08:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Where would it be appropriate to add this case against the doctrine of perpetual virginity? The case starts with psalm chapter 69. Verse 9 is this - "I have become an outcast to my kin, a stranger to my mother's children." It is clearly a psalm from Christ's perspective and a prophecy as it is the source for the famous line "instead they put gall in my food; for my thirst they gave me vinegar." which is mentioned as a fulfilled prophesy in the New Testament. Next, we can know the brothers and sisters mentioned were not children of Joseph from a prior marriage because Jewish people didn't have more than one "firstborn". This is evidenced in Genesis 49:3 when Jacob calls his sons from different mothers and tells Reuben that he is the firstborn - obviously because he was chronologically born first. If Joseph had children from a previous marriage, someone else would have been the first born. Luke 2:22 "When the time of their purification according to the Law of Moses had been completed, Joseph and Mary took him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord 23(as it is written in the Law of the Lord, "Every firstborn male is to be consecrated to the Lord" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.229.192.217 (talk) 08:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The modern opposition is quite simple, and encompasses what most Protestants believe about the subject: the idea of Mary's perpetual virginity not only has no basis in scripture, it is flatly contradicted by the most obvious literal interpretation of the Gospels. Catholic and Orthodox doctrine bends over backwards to reinterpret the text is a less plausible way to get around the contradiction. It's understandable that they don't have a problem with the lack of scriptural basis; Catholic and Orthodox Christianity are not sola scriptura. But the idea that non-scriptural doctrines can contradict scripture and still be Christian makes no sense to me. 75.76.213.106 (talk) 22:42, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Original investigation refuting the virginitas post partum aspect of the perpetual virginity of mary

hello, i just want to comment that i have done a paper on this subject, and i tackle it from a fresh perspective, which to be honest, its weird that nobody has done it before me (that i know of)and i wish to add this view to this article, just want some feedback, to see what others think, here ill outline the basics of my results

so the deal is this, insted of tackling this subject from the gospels, i try to sustain that mary had at least one more brother, the one the apostle paul met according to (Gal 1:19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.)

i know this text in itself may not amount to much, since the word being used is adelphos, the same used in the gospels, and thus it could easly mean cousins, which is one of the official postures of the catholic church.

but this text united with the following, give new life to the traditional interpretation of adelphos, the text is COL 4:10 which reads: (Aristarchus my fellow prisoner greets you, with Mark the cousin of Barnabas (about whom you received instructions: if he comes to you, welcome him)

as of the time of the apostle paul the word anepsios (g431 strong) was exclusive for cousin

(according to vines expository dictionary on the new testament, it reads the followin: in Col 4:10 denotes a "cousin" rather than a nephew (AV, "sister's son"). "Cousin" is its meaning in various periods of Greek writers. In this sense it is used in the Sept., in Num 36:11. In later writings it denotes a nephew; hence the AV rendering. As Lightfoot says, there is no reason to suppose that the Apostle would have used it in any other than its proper sense. We are to understand, therefore, that Mark was the cousin of Barnabas)

now this is true specialy if you are a sola scrptura beliver,the word is only used in the LXX in Num 36:11 (For Mahlah, Tirzah, and Hoglah, and Milcah, and Noah, the daughters of Zelophehad, were married unto their father's brothers' sons) LXX (11 και εγενοντο Θερσα και Εγλα και Μελχα και Νουα και Μααλα θυγατερες σαλπααδ τοις ανεψιοις αυτων )

what does this mean then? this means that the apostle paul knew and used the word for cousin in greek in one of his epistles, so he was not respecting hebrew tradtion (as some debate the evangelist did) by using adelphos to mean cousin.

conluding, had the apostle ment to say that James was kin or cousin to the lord, we now have ample evidence that he wouldve used the correct word, yet he said brother. therefore, mary did in fact had other sons, wich would rebuke the belif of the perpetual virginity.

just want to add that this is only refering to the virginitas post partum aspect of the perpetual virginity, and not to the virgin conception or birth, which of course all branches of christianity adhere to. Gabrielsol (talk) 02:08, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia policies original research is not permitted. Please read the article WP:NOR Marauder40 (talk) 14:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Obviously i would not use this article to "publish" my original investigation, let me quote of the article you linked "This policy does not prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia, but it does prohibit them from drawing on their personal knowledge without citing their sources."

just want my published investigation to form part of this subject, specialy since it is done on the subject, of course, it would be writen in a neutral way, just adding some information, which i belive is relevant.Gabrielsol (talk) 06:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

especificly, let me show you where and why my investigation is a logical and relevant add, there is a part of the article named "biblical passages and their interpretation" which for some reason omits the passage where this is investigation is based upon, galatians 1:19, and its one of the many passages used with the others mentioned there, to refute the post partum aspect of the perpetual virginity. so if the results of this investigation are to be added, they would be added only as a small, cited, neutral, explanation of the very relevant and very important passage of gal 1:19. thanks Gabrielsol (talk) 06:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Immaculate conception

In many cases, the Perpetual Virginity is confused or confounded with the Immaculate Conception, and this may just as well be noted. ADM (talk) 00:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Done. History2007 (talk) 00:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Claims that Count Saint Germain is Saint Joseph

I have found this interesting claim that Saint-Germain/Enoch/Metatron was also Saint Joseph, the husband of Mary. This would mean theologically that Joseph is an incarnation of the Holy Spirit and that he is divine in his non-incarnated form. Now, Metatron cannot sin, therefore any special relationship between Joseph and Mary would not be counted as sin. This would explain why many Catholics give a special cultus to Joseph and the Holy Family. [1] ADM (talk) 03:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, although interesting, it is clearly original research and WP:OR disallows its use, even if it is 100% true. The missionsaintgermain site is not a reliable 3rd party type site either. But in any case, this is clearly a WP:OR siuation. History2007 (talk) 03:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be factually in error. I am not Catholic, but I hardly believe that this thesis explains why such emphasis is given to the "holy family." Whatever the reason is it can hardly be explained in terms of Joseph being divine, otherwise he would play a larger role in Catholic theology than Mary, but as it is he not only does not play such a role, but is often neglected in comparison to the other Saints. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.62.119.81 (talk) 06:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Section on Protestantism

This section is utterly useless and contains statements that are either incomprehensible or completely wrong. For example, the opening sentence states: "From the fifth century on no opposition whatever to the doctrine was expressed in either East or West." What does the statement even *mean*? That no Protestants have opposed the doctrine? This is patently absurd as most Protestants do not believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary. The entire section cherry picks various Protestant figures and tries to establish their belief in this doctrine, but makes no mention of the majority of Protestant leaders that do not support the belief. The entire section needs a rewrite because as it stands now it is nothing more than a POV love letter to the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity. Supertheman ^(talk) 12:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

You are perfectly right about the opening sentence. It is obviously incomplete. I have endeavoured to complete it, so that it makes sense. The heading of the section is indeed misleading: the section is not about Protestantism, but only about the Protestant Reformation. I have fixed that too. It would be good to include views of modern Protestants, who in this matter do not agree with Luther and his contemporaries. Can you help by adding a section on their views? Lima (talk) 18:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Not being familiar with Protestant views I can not say that I agree or disagree. But whenever I read "majority of X believes Y" I wonder who did a formal survey on that. Given that there are multiple Protestant views, could whoever adds anything please be sure to have exact references for each assertion on majority of X believes Y. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 18:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I too think that this section is oddly constructed, and that the "Biblical passages and their interpretations" section is too weighted in the "pro" perpetual virginity position. TuckerResearch (talk) 05:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The line that is given to Calvin's views on the matter should either be eliminated, expanded, qualified or made to link to the article on his views. As it stands, it is misleading: it gives the impression that he (like Wesley and Luther, the theologians he is sandwiched between) affirmed the doctrine. In reality he rejected it more emphatically than most Protestants, since he thought virginity within marriage would violate the nature of the marriage covenant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.62.119.81 (talk) 06:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

This article fails to be a balanced and NPOV presentation bu overstating Protestant belief that Jesus could emerge from Mary's uterus without rupturing her hymen, or that her hymen was miraculously restored after expanding so his head could pass through. Protestants I have heard discuss it only go so far as to grant her getting pregnant without having intercourse, but assume a natural delivery. Edison (talk) 20:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Question about the introduction

The last sentence of the second paragraph says: "However, since the Desert Fathers these individuals have been interpreted by some as possibly cousins or relatives of Jesus." It is confusing. Is it saying that the Desert fathers had this interpretation, or is it saying that this interpretation dates to the time of the Desert Fathers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.27.111.8 (talk) 20:45, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Josephus

Esoglou, it would appear that Josephus believed that James was the brother of Jesus, as did the early Jewish sources. I will leave it to you to work it into the article from a NPOV. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 11:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Done. Esoglou (talk) 12:01, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Believed de fide?

In order to prevent an edit war, I wanted to explain why I would like to change the following statement:

"The doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary, which is believed de fide, i.e. held as having the highest degree of certainty among doctrines, states that..."

The statement implies that all religions follow this doctrine, particularly if you don't know what "de fide" means. The definition of de fide listed there implies that it is a certain, verified truth. I'll reword it to make it clearer. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 19:17, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

No it does not mean that at all. But this is a less than smart discussion and I will let it go. Makes no big difference to the article and an IP will probably change it in 6 months anyway. History2007 (talk) 19:42, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Did you look at the current edit? Are you happy with that? ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 20:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I will be very happy not to talk about this any more. History2007 (talk) 21:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Islam

Both sources mentioned are Catholic sources and neither reference a reason why the Muslims might believe it, instead simply stating that the Qur'an affirms the perpetual virginity. However, while the Qur'an does clearly support the virgin birth of Jesus, it does not state or imply celibacy or virginity after the fact, nor does this notion mesh with Muslim culture. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 22:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

So do you have WP:RS sources that supports your statement, or is it just your personal opinion that "nor does this notion mesh with Muslim culture". The way Wikipedia works is that personal opinions do not matter, so you need a WP:RS source to refute those statements. As is, those seem like WP:RS sources, and that is what we have to go by, not use WP:primary sources such as the Qur'an itself. So, you will either come up with RS sources, or I will re-instate those items. History2007 (talk) 23:04, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I have added two reliable references that are focused on Islam rather than mentioning an unsourced opinion in passing. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 01:11, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Looks better now. History2007 (talk) 01:13, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Protestant views

The lead section correctly states that early reformers supported the concept of perpetual virginity. Current doctrine of diverse protestant churches, including Lutheran and Anglican however, does not. The citations do not support the statement. This needs correcting. Rlsheehan (talk) 17:18, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

How did you determine they do not? I am pretty sure I checked those last month, but not 100% sure. Did you look them up, all 5 of them? History2007 (talk) 18:25, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The citations concentrate on the views of the early reformers. There are two problems: 1) Just because Luther said something does not make it current policy or belief of the many different Lutheran churches. Several of his published thoughts are not current Lutheran belief. 2) Protestant churches often do not have strong formal published doctrines: there may be published creeds and statements of concord but individual regions, synods, churches, and parishoners are not bound by them. The most important Protestant document is the Bible, sola scriptura, and that does not discuss perpetual virginity.

I have seen nothing that suggests current broad Protestant belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary. Rlsheehan (talk) 19:02, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Please answer the question: Did you read the citation texts? Read this one "maintained by some Anglican and Lutherans" then check the others yourslef, before jumping to conclusions. Now, 4 more to check. Check first, type later. Easy? History2007 (talk) 19:33, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Let's read them carefully. The sentence in question is: "Currently Lutheran and some Anglican churches endorse the doctrine of perpetual virginity, but it is not held in all of these churches" and has THREE citations.

Reference 5 is the Webster dictionary that says "...also maintained by some Anglican and Lutheran theologians". This is a far cry from an endorsement of the churches! I would support this statement in the article because it is supported by a good reference. This reference does not support the current wording.

I have not read reference 10 but it suggests "a lifelong belief of Luther". Again, this is not endorsement by all Lutheran churches.

Reference 11 was written by an Anglican grad student and is not an endorsement by the Anglican communion.

The citations do not support the current wording. Let's change the wording to that of the dictionary. Rlsheehan (talk) 21:57, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

No big deal. Done. Also read this. History2007 (talk) 00:25, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I was going to post a comment about this, but I see it was already discussed. However, the introduction seems to contradict both what was said here and what the sources say. The introduction currently says "The doctrine of perpetual virginity is, however, currently maintained by some Anglican and Lutheran theologians". I find no support for that in the four sources. Two of them deal exclusively with what some Anglicans and Lutherans thought 400 year ago, obviously irrelevant for the current situation. I don't have Jackson's book and don't know what it says; does it really say that some Anglican and Lutherans currently believe Mary remained a virgin? I do have Webster's, though don't with me right now but I'll check what it says. In the meantime, I'm removing the two sources that lack any relevance for a discussion of what Lutherans and Anglicans currently believe.Jeppiz (talk) 15:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Clarification?

Perhaps I have misunderstood, but I feel that the following line (from the section about the Early Church) would be more accurate with the insertion of the word in italics: "The document discusses Mary’s virginity before birth, the absence of labor pains, and how a midwife’s examination demonstrated Mary’s virginity during birth, thus asserting the virginity of Mary before, during, and immediately after the birth of Jesus." WookMuff (talk) 01:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I have not actually read the original document, but one needs see if it also asserts it elsewhere as weeks afterwards, etc. History2007 (talk) 02:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

We don't have access to the Gambero book, and the other cited source, which is on patrology, may well give the exact text of the Protoevangelium, so are we permitted to give the text of the Protoevangelium itself as source? I have tentatively done so, making the statement in the article reflect what the Protoevangelium actually says. If you think it illegitimate to do so, just revert. Esoglou (talk) 07:47, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I see no problem with your edit. History2007 (talk) 08:33, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Referencing of quotations

While references in ledes are not normally required it is required that ALL QUOTATIONS are referenced even when in the lede. Afterwriting (talk) 11:20, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Don't get upset now. The refs were in the body, you could have just copied them. History2007 (talk) 11:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Not upset, just pointing out what should have been obvious. Afterwriting (talk) 15:58, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok... no big deal anyway. History2007 (talk) 17:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Virginity during birth

What is the significance of this statement, which comes up multiple times in the article? Why would a virgin before giving birth lose her status in virtue of having done so? Was there a tradition that babies being delivered were, in the process of birth, metaphorically engaged in intercourse with their mothers? --Gargletheape (talk) 14:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The meaning is: with hymen intact. Lima (talk) 19:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

this Belief is not supported by any face - it is from a RELIGION - that speak volumes! —Preceding unsigned comment added by GADFLY46 (talk • contribs) 02:23, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Obviously a woman's body changes after giving birth. Her hymen was intact, nothing was changed. Her body was as if she never gave birth. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 12:23, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Virginity is not defined by an intact hymen. Many virgins do not have intact hymens. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

It is important in church teaching. Her body was not changed by the birth at all. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 21:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Non sequitor. You are not responding to what I orte. I said that many virgins do not have intact hymens. Did you think I was referring to some other virgins who also gave birth to sons? I wrote that many virgins do not have intact hymens, I am talking about virgins, not about girls who have had children. Wasn't it obvious that I was not referring to any change occuring during conception, pregnancy, or birth. The Church cannot possibly teach that Mary's body underwent no changes from birth - she got bigger, and surely began to menstruate, these are changes. Many girls break their hymens during childhood. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I do not think you are understanding what I am saying. her body was not changed BY the birth. Yes, she was pregnant and got "bigger", but after she gave birth, her body was as it was she had never had child. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 21:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I understand exactly what you are saying. Can you tell me 'where I ever even hinted that her body was changed BY the birth? Since I never suggested that, your comment does not follow mine. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

"The Church cannot possibly teach that Mary's body underwent no changes from birth - she got bigger, and surely began to menstruate, these are changes". Those changes went away, to a point as if they never had happened. That is all. I don't see how that is so confusing to you. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 23:43, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I am not confused, you are. All I said was that there is no reason to think she had an intact hymen, that simply has nothing to do with virginity. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Then your comments on this section have no meaning. I never said an intact hymen was necessary for virginity. Be civil. All I said was that the church teaches her body was not changed. I never even originally commented on something you said, you wrote to me. The church teaches her body was uncorupted and her hymen was intact. Got a problem? Address the Pope. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 16:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

You wrote "Her hymen was intact," with no evidence, and and Lima wrote that virginity = intact hymen. I was responding to these two comments, by you and by Lima - you are not the only one participating in this discussion and I have a right to reply to Lima, not just you, so please be civil. Where does the Church teach that her hymen was intact? A torn humen is no more a corruption of the body than mensturation, or the growth of pubic hair. So your point about corruption of the body is irrelevant. And I must ask you, where have I ever suggested that her giving birth to Jesus changed her body? Please be civil and respond to what I wrote, and not to what I did not write, when you respond to me. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:35, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The idea of perpetual virginity I understand. Virginity, to use a biblical phrase, is a woman not having been known by a man. But what is meant by virginity being preserved "during and after giving birth". Virginity and childbirth are entirely different.203.184.41.226 (talk) 19:30, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Where's section for opposition?

As we know, there have been many, who have opposed the Virginity of Mary. So I would like to know about such section of this page, or if it can be created, if there's none right now. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:30, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Updates to the lead

Willthacheerleader18 thanks for writing the new sentence in the lead that notes the Biblical references to Jesus's brothers and sisters. 2602:304:788B:DF50:8CDD:5461:389A:631B (talk) 21:40, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

2602:304:788B:DF50:8CDD:5461:389A:631BI I agree that a Biblical reference to siblings of Jesus belongs in the lead, just wanted to make sure it fit the tone of the article itself. Thank you as well. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 21:41, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Perpetual virginity of Mary. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080615045105/http://web.ukonline.co.uk/ephrem/lit-james.htm to http://web.ukonline.co.uk/ephrem/lit-james.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.masseiana.org/panarion_bk1.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060903061336/http://wesley.nnu.edu/john_wesley/letters/1749b.htm to http://wesley.nnu.edu/john_wesley/letters/1749b.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081221185440/http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/martin_luther_on_mary.htm to http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/martin_luther_on_mary.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:01, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Looking to add more neutral perspective content

·I ended up at this article by chance, but I gave it a read because it somehow never popped up in my ~15 years of Catholic schooling. I found most of the article starting at 'History' both uninformative and uninteresting. I understand that most available sources are pretty heavily biased, but the section on Scripture was just different sides taking turns rejecting invariably weak points. I understand that these arguments do take place rather frequently, but the repetitive, unproductive squabbling of ideologue apologetics is neither informative nor of general interest. That seems like the sort of content that belongs in encyclopedias geared toward Christian readers. The relevant drama played out in ~200-500 AD, and the Bible, especially the passages frequently discussed now, were never what drove the different sides of the controversy. The movement to Mary as perpetual virgin was spurred by an apocryphal text that the church had and still has no respect for. The idea slowly grew from there and worked its way into the mainstream with the help of some timely developments:the rise of asceticism and the growing religious fervor for Mariology. The two Doctors of the Church who really went after Helvidius and Jovinian were largely motivated by obscure and/or harmful notions about virginity and sex. Catholic apologists defend them generally, but it's noteworthy that their theological and ideological arguments for Mary's perpetual virginity have fell out of favor or were outright rejected relatively quickly. Augustine cleaned up the church's explanation for their position with some reasonably strong writings, and from there on out the idea spread without too much resistance until the Reformation. The best academic Catholic book I could find supported much of what I've mentioned (he was pretty clear about his view that Ambrose and Jerome were morally and intellectually superior to the heretics.) He acknowledged how flawed the arguments that helped spread the belief were, and he affirmed the idea that the spread of the idea benefited hugely from the cultural and religious trends occurring concurrently. His view is that this extraordinary path to acceptance shows just how powerful the Holy Spirit is. I don't think it's unfair to say that much of the church's confidence stems from the fact that they trust that God wouldn't allow heresy to take hold in a lasting way. I'm not religious, but if I have any religious bias it's in favor of Catholics. From my perspective, the history described seems to reflect the Catholic notion that the nitty-gritty is irrelevant and the important thing is that the Holy Spirit slowly but surely guided the church to the proper conclusion. There's nothing wrong with that, but it's not an adequate way to recount events for a general, religiously diverse audience.

Just my thoughts. I mainly relied on books by Luigi Gambero and David Hunter for information. Both were noticably biased (Catholic and anti-Catholic, repectively), but their well-sourced, detailed breakdowns of the history of Mary as perpetually virgin differed more in interpretation than fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SwervinAround (talk • contribs) 05:27, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

The word "until" certainly takes a beating in theology. My question is - who cares. Joseph appears to get a roomy not a wife by some interpretations. If the "brothers and sisters" were half-siblings then would be order and they could criticize their baby brother all they wanted to. Tiring to twist the Bible to match theology sure creates a mess. 2601:181:8301:4510:C4CF:57BE:308F:B6E8 (talk) 02:48, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

The two Arguments

In Brief: I suggest putting the Arguments for the Thesis that Mary was a perpetual Virgin in the header of this article. I only found two good ones, but maybe there are more? (the arguments I found are Mary's reply to the angel, and the words of Jesus on the cross) (and then there are some authority based arguments that would be relevant for catholics, such as the opinion of former popes). EDIT: And, also put in the header then the counter arguments, i.e. the fact that Jesus had brothers, and the fact that nowhere in the Bible is this perpetual virginity mentioned. FreieFF (talk) 11:33, 3 December 2019 (UTC) I would do this, unless some good reason not to do it is given?

My reasoning: I came to this article with the aim of looking for the arguments that support the thesis that Mary was a perpetual virgin. The reason is, that I am reading the Bible, and couldn't find any argument there. FreieFF (talk) 11:30, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

What does it mean?

Another point: what does the virginity refer to? Maybe a definition of virginity could be included?

For one thing; it is known these days that many ideas about the Hymen are myth; they highly vary among women; for some it is bigger, for some smaller; some are born without it. I understand that it dissapears after giving birth.

So what else can it mean? Does it mean that she had no penetrative sex, for instance? Because that also clear things up a bit more, then we could write "it is assumed by the catholic church that Mary never had penetrative sex". Maybe including a passage about the relevance of this. (because for me as non-catholic, this sounds rather irrelevant). FreieFF (talk) 11:41, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Dogma abandoned

So post-Reformation Protestantism abandoned this dogma, true. But it seems that they went further and created a new doctrine: that Mary had other children after Jesus. It seems to be positively formulated, based on evidence they claim they found in Sacred Scripture. It is not simply that Mary did not remain a virgin, Protestants hold that she entered a conventional marriage with St. Joseph and definitely had children. (<-- This is all OR and I don't know what sources would back it up.) Elizium23 (talk) 06:23, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

My understanding of the word dogma is that relates to those things taught and held as incontrovertible. That's true of the Catholic position on PV, but I don't think the Protestant churches go beyond the VB - what the individual Protestant might believe on the matter is up to him/her. Or so I think. It would be interesting to follow up - the various Protestant confessions etc might be the place to look. Achar Sva (talk) 06:55, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

New eyes requested

I thank all those who have, presumably, been watching as I've revised this article. I've tried to represent opinion fairly, but of course that may not be the case, and so I invite anyone who wishes to now either edit the article directly or make suggestions here, while I stand back. Thank you again. (Just one request - if you edit directly, could you please use the sfn format for srouces, both for neatness and because it makes future editing easier by reducing clutter within the text)Achar Sva (talk) 06:53, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

This article needs serious revision

Sorry, but this is one of the worst articles I've ever read on Wikipedia. The perpetual virginity of Mary was attested among the earliest church fathers and, despite what your article purports, by all the major founders of the Protestant Reformation churches. There are numerous typological references to Mary that the early church used as scriptural evidence for her virginity, and had she had other children than Jesus, he would not have needed to entrust her to his disciple John at his crucifixion.

This article is written from a feminist/postmodern political viewpoint and creates false dialectics to assert that early Christian doctrine was driven by conflict over marriage vs. asceticism; indeed, to imply that all developments in the Christian church were motivated by political conflict. This is so superficial and dim-witted to be beyond the reach of an appropriate insult. Anonymous "scholars" (anyone from the German "Historical Jesus" school of the 19th century and their idiot followers) are cited as experts, while the unanimous testimony of the church fathers, beginning in the 1st century, is ignored. What could those old fools have known? They were only getting their theology from the apostles themselves. Surely our 21st century experts are much wiser. After all, we have computers now. (But not "Q", the imaginary collection of Jesus sayings that was dogma in the academic world a generation ago and now has been discarded faster than the geocentric theory of the universe).

I give the article an F. I came to it trying to find when the denial of Mary's perpetual virginity entered Protestantism. It did not come from the Reformers. Your article lies in saying that it did (and then contradicts itself) and skews a topic that requires much more deference and detail than has been given. Somehow I suspect this was intentional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.167.246.243 (talk) 09:07, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Calkins

Calkins's work is theology not history. He is thoroughly biased for the truth of Catholic dogma, unlike Catholic Bible scholars, who put evidence, rationality and historical fact above any dogma. E.g., he creams John P. Meier for not kowtowing to official Church dogma. His (Calkins's) book is therefore a highly biased source. It may only be used to establish vanilla facts, otherwise WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV will have to be used. If you want to know the POV of conservative cardinals, his book is a useful source. It is not useful for establishing the prevalent view among Bible scholars.

And about objective fact: there is simply no Bible verse postulating that Mary remained a virgin after giving birth, or anything remotely similar with that. In fact, Mary herself is scarcely mentioned in the Bible. Pharisees get more attention than her. Just as Muggles get more attention in Harry Potter than she does in the Bible. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:14, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

NPOV discussion: Arguments and evidence

This section puts forward the POV that there is "no Biblical evidence for the perpetual virginity" and it goes down from there. Great prominence is given to the Jerome thing, for some reason, and precious little evidence is admitted in favor of the perpetual virginity of Mary. Elizium23 (talk) 22:49, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

The statement that there is no biblical evidence for Mary's perpetual virginity is based on a reliable source, which makes it a fact, not a point of view; it's possible, of course, that another RS might say there is biblical evidence for the perpetual virginity, but I haven't come across it. Jerome is given prominence because he altered the terms of the debate surrounding the adelphoi: the Protoevangelium (late 2nd century) had explained them as sons of Joseph and therefore half-brothers of Jesus, but Jerome said this was incorrect and they actually cousins; the half-brothers explanation is still accepted by the Eastern church, Jerome's by the Western, and so this is important. If "precious little" evidence for the perpetual virginity is given, it's because precious little (your phrase, not mine) exists: the two gospel narratives are quite clear that Mary was a virgin prior to the birth of Jesus, but say nothing about her remaining a virgin during or after (which, I imagine, is why there are no RS setting out the biblical evidence for the perpetual virginity, as distinct from offering explanations for the adelphoi).Achar Sva (talk) 23:59, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I've added details of the arguments advanced by John Paul II just to make clear what those are.Achar Sva (talk) 05:17, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

• Biblical Evidence
  • Dave Armstrong takes the "evidence against" and turns it on its head.
• Understanding Mary's perpetual virginity
  • An important point is nearly a footnote: Mary is the New Ark of the Covenant. Uzziah was struck dead when he touched the Old Ark. Elizium23 (talk) 05:34, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

    Recommended reading:

    • Jesus and the Jewish Roots of Mary
    • Behold Your Mother Elizium23 (talk) 05:37, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, but Dave Armstrong isn't a reliable source as defined by Wikipedia - RS for academic articles means someone with academic standing. Brant Pitre is RS, but the rest are not. Even then, what they are doing is dismissing various pieces of evidence (the adelphoi, etc) that suggest the gospel-writers had never heard of the idea. That's not the same thing as producing evidence pro - which Armstrong admits: "Scripture doesn’t come right out and explicitly state that Mary was a perpetual virgin". Achar Sva (talk) 05:46, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Achar Sva, where is the policy for that restriction? Elizium23 (talk) 05:58, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Here's the policy on scholarly sources - and an article like this is a scholarly article. Achar Sva (talk) 06:02, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Achar Sva, it doesn't say what you say it does. That is from a section giving gratuitous examples of reliable sources. Wikipedia:NEWSORG is just as valid as the "Scholarly" section above it. Elizium23 (talk) 06:04, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Different types of articles use different types of sources. But I want to point out that you don't actually need Armstrong, Pitre and the rest - they're simply repeating the arguments made by Pope John Paul II, who is a perfectly acceptable source and whom I've just added in detail to the article. (And he, of course, is simply repeating the much earlier arguments made in the first few paras of the section - there's little new under the sun).Achar Sva (talk) 06:09, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

"no biblical basis for Mary's perpetual virginity"

This line in the article seems like it would be disputed. Catholics have made appeals to at least a typological basis in the Bible for the perpetual virginity, for example the daughter of Jephthah in Judges 11, the Ark of the Covenant, and Eve. Here are links to some of those arguments: https://catholicexchange.com/what-this-heroic-old-testament-virgin-teaches-us-about-mary https://stpaulcenter.com/understanding-marys-perpetual-virginity/ 122.58.153.247 (talk) 21:45, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Not WP:RS. While we can use WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV for the opinions of Catholics, some statements about the Bible are objectively true. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:49, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

In fact, I wondered if this sentence is appropriate since it establishes a necessity that everything that is believed must be biblically based or mentioned. That's not the case. Faith knows the pillars of scripture, doctrine and tradition.--Medusahead (talk) 08:44, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Again, that may be fine with Catholics, it isn't fine with others. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:53, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Medusahead, the point our article is making is that the lack of any biblical basis for Mary's perpetual virginity meant that some other basis had to be found for the idea; the idea itself, in fact, had an evolutionary history. Achar Sva (talk) 23:14, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

... and it is thus a historical fact, which also holds for Catholics (it holds regardless of one's religion or lack of it). Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:30, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

The middle way is to say that there is “no explicit biblical basis for Mary’s perpetual virginity,” by alas, a Protestant zealot deleted that edit. Bibleguy2020 (talk) 07:26, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

The source (Boisclair) says "no biblical basis". But on reviewing the article I think a slightly different point can be made, in that there seems to be no mention of the argument from typology. If you want to add that at the end of the final section, you need academic books, not online articles. Achar Sva (talk) 22:40, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Early vs Ancient Christian theologians

A more experienced editor (Special:MobileDiff/1033084559) has been suggesting his edits are better, the editor appears to have been tracking my edits and undoing a number of my edits using "partial" Wikipedia jargon in the past few days. On this page editors are of the opinion that "early" Christian is appropriate for the Antiquity AKa Ancient period of Christian History

If you go into Early Christianity (internal link), it's apparent that the Ancient Period AKA Antiquity of Christian History has been split into Early and Late.

Similarly the middle ages in Christian history have been spilt into Early Middle and Late

Only Origen is the "Early" theologian of the Christian Antiquity who lived in between 33-324 AD ie "Early" Christian.

Augustine of Hippo, Jerome, and Athanasius of Alexandria by paying attention to their individual dates, spent their adulthoods and were theologically active in the Late Antiquity (325–476) they are technically not "Early Christianity" of Christian Antiquity.

I know the dates and periods because I studied it and contributed a piece of information to the article

I couldn't describe these early and late ones as "antique" theologians for Antiquity as required by Special:MobileDiff/1033084559. Keeping in mind common sense as per MOS:HON, Ancient was the right adjective to describe these theologians of the Early antiquity and the Late antiquity ie Ancient period, in one word.

Also "Ancient Christian" is not so farfetched or unheard of that it violates WP:MOS, it's used by publishing houses and authors too. Let's not make a fuss about it:

https://web.archive.org/web/20210510122122/https://www.ivpress.com/ancient-christian-commentary-on-scripture

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=7lgFoV-HnWUC&printsec=frontcover&dq=ancient+Christian&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjEvMHS6dvxAhUCzDgGHT4FB4YQ6AEwBHoECAwQAw#v=onepage&q=ancient%20Christian&f=false

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=nXmMxuG73fwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=ancient+Christian&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjEvMHS6dvxAhUCzDgGHT4FB4YQ6AEwAXoECAoQAw#v=onepage&q=ancient%20Christian&f=false

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=dlV-BAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=ancient+Christian&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjEvMHS6dvxAhUCzDgGHT4FB4YQ6AEwAnoECAcQAw#v=onepage&q=ancient%20Christian&f=false

Rookie edits don't necessarily become "inappropriate" as often as they are being made to be

I have explained my position and I would appreciate if editors would not take sides (Special:MobileDiff/1033131591) and hope WP:BITE was being practised. Nolicmahr (talk) 22:32, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

"no Biblical basis" is POV

The views of majority of Christians ie Pope leader 1.2 billion Christians, followed by the Orthodox Church, and the Oriental Churches is being silenced in the Lead.

Both the Pontific Church and the Orthodox Church have since the ancient times, maintained that the Adelphoi of Christ has multiple meanings apart from "biological brothers", it can also mean cousins or step brothers in the Greek Bible and the Hebrew Bible.

The crux of the argument is the simple fact: the Bible was not originally written in English, and therefore human errors in translation are possible.

A different interpretation and a lack of Biblical fundamentalism/ does not mean that "there is no biblical basis" for the doctrine.

References

https://web.archive.org/web/20210411093920/https://www.goarch.org/-/the-ever-virginity-of-the-mother-of-god

https://web.archive.org/web/20210421123735/https://www.oca.org/questions/romancatholicism/the-perpetual-virginity-of-mary

https://web.archive.org/web/20210419084901/https://udayton.edu/imri/mary/p/perpetual-virginity-dogmatic-status-and-meaning.php

https://web.archive.org/web/20210120122352if_/https://www.catholic.com/tract/brethren-of-the-lord

https://web.archive.org/web/20210201231247/https://www.corpuschristiphx.org/blog.php?month=201807&id=565990701&cat=&pg=1&title=Brant+Pitre+explains+the+so-called+%26%238220%3Bbrothers%26%238221%3B+of+Christ+mentioned+in+last+Sunday%26%238217%3Bs+Gospel

https://web.archive.org/web/20050310112601/http://www.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/e-bks/bk/new/ap080300.htm Nolicmahr (talk) 22:15, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not cater to WP:FRINGE sources (e.g. Brant Pitre). Torturing the Bible until it confesses your favorite theology is nothing new. Biblical literalism can draw any desired conclusion from the Bible, and symbolical interpretation does that even more so. We only follow mainstream Bible scholars. If you have a full professor of the Bible from a reputable university supporting the thesis that there is any hint in the Bible about Mary being eternally virgin, please quote him or her. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:25, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: How would Brant Pitre be fringe? Is he a racist or terrorist or communist or anything else? The article earlier mentioned there's "no Biblical basis" for the dogma using a fundamentalist fringe citation, that was lying there for God knows how long. Special:MobileDiff/1033003471. The discussion is about varied interpretation of Adelphoi in biblical passages, not torturing the Bible. There are reputable theologians mentioned in each of those references. Nolicmahr (talk) 01:32, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

@Nolicmahr: Fringe does not means terrorist or something like that, but it has for us the meaning defined at the guideline WP:FRINGE (please read it).

About Pitre: Current scholarship opposes the author Pitre on every account. His stance is fundamentalist at best. His writing style is that of a high school freshman. ... If you want to learn something, read a book by Dr. Paula Fredriksen or even Dr. John P. Meier, who may have taught Brant Pitre while he was a student at Notre Dame. It's obvious that Pitre didn't pay much attention in class. — T. Bill, Amazon.com

Adelphoi are a red herring: whatever the truth might be about Adelphoi, it does not supplant an explicit (verbatim) mention of Mary's eternal virginity in the Bible. And there are very few Bible verses explicitly about Mary, the mother of Jesus, so there aren't that many verses to choose from. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:48, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: Yes did put that in the article, the are no explicit statements about virginity during and after birth. Hence the Bible cannot be the basis, it's incomplete. Nolicmahr (talk) 01:57, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I have problems parsing what you mean by that, please elaborate. Anyway, the WP:CITED scholar is https://www.alaskapacific.edu/people/regina-boisclair/ tgeorgescu (talk) 02:04, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Scott Hahn, Ph.D., Professor of Theology and Scripture at the (reputable) Franciscan University of Steubenville, writes while commenting on Luke 1:34:

The Greek text literally reads "I do not know man", which refers to Mary's virginal status rather than her marital status. Her concern is not that she is unmarried but that she is a virgin at present and that she intends to remain one in the future. The announcement of a miraculous conception (1:31) thus causes Mary to wonder aloud how God will bless her with a son and yet preserve her virginal purity. Her words are inexplicable otherwise. For nothing about the angel's announcement should have perplexed Mary--whose betrothal to Joseph was already a legally binding marriage--unless she intended to forego ordinary sexual relations even as a married woman.

He additionally comments on John 19:26-27:

Jesus honors his Mother by entrusting her to the protective care of the Apostle John, presumably because Mary had no other children to assume the responsibility.

and

It is unlikely that Jesus would entrust his Mother to the Apostle John at his Crucifixion if she had other natural sons to care for her (Jn 19:26-27).

CosmicLycanroc (talk) 05:12, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Again, that is fine and dandy as theology, it isn't okay as history (Bible scholarship). I.e. Hahn takes at face value a dialogue that is broadly seen as historically unreliable. Pretty weak sauce. Hahn is preaching to the choir. Nothing wrong with that if he does it as a theologian and not as a historian of the Bible. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:15, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I simply provided the "full professor of the Bible from a reputable university supporting the thesis that there is any hint in the Bible about Mary being eternally virgin" you asked for. If by that you don't mean a Professor of Theology and Scripture, I find that unfair as other Professors of Theology and Scripture like Pheme Perkins are cited as reliable sources in wiki-articles like "Authorship of the Bible."

Hahn's points here are not merely theological, but exegetical. If it was merely theological in reasoning, something like Mary's purity and immaculateness or her connection to Eve or the Ark of the Covenant would have been spoken of. The evidence and arguments used in the previously quoted commentary are of the same historical quality as any Biblical evidence, arguments, and points used concerning this topic. If you feel that all points made on this topic when using the Gospels as a basis are purely theological in substance and devoid of historical value for Biblical scholarship, ok. But in that case, Hahn's points here can't be simply dismissed as being theological and not historical.

But in addition, James B. Prothro, Ph.D. in New Testament (University of Cambridge), and former Assistant Professor of Theology at Ave Maria University upholds the previously quoted understanding of Luke 1:34 as having "some historical possibility" and the previously quoted agrument about John 19:26 as having "suggestive merit"; and Perry J. Cahall, Ph.D. in Historical Theology (Saint Louis University), Professor of Historical Theology at the Pontifical College Josephinum (accredited), also accepts Hahn's exegesis of Luke 1:34. James B. Prothro's research article, "Semper Virgo? A Biblical Review of a Debated Dogma" gives a more thorough scholarly examination on the topic also if Hahn's work is still to be dismissed as not "supporting the thesis that there is any hint in the Bible about Mary being eternally virgin"(emphasis mine). CosmicLycanroc (talk) 19:31, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

As Bart Ehrman stated, I am not saying I have no agendas and no biases. Let me be emphatic. I DO have an agenda and I DO have biases. My agenda is to propagate a scholarly understanding and appreciation of the Bible. And my bias is that a scholarly understanding can NOT be determined by theological dogmas. That would be the POV of mainstream Bible scholars, i.e. what separates them from theologians. Again, using WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV we write something like According to Catholic theologians, some Bible verses imply that Mary remained a virgin. But we don't say that in the voice of Wikipedia. I.e. we don't claim that it would be an objective fact about the Bible.

It is a claim made by true believers defending their own faith. Wikipedia obeys WP:DUE. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:12, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Because you haven't said otherwise, I will assume I have fulfilled providing a "full professor of the Bible from a reputable university supporting the thesis that there is any hint in the Bible about Mary being eternally virgin." On the topic you have brought up now, you seem to present a faulty picture of the sources I presented. I, of course, agree that scholarly understanding can not be determined by theological dogmas. Neither of the sources I used used those as evidence. The latter (which as I previously stated is more scholarly) explicitly focuses on an "exegetical and historical perspective" in its main section, and I would say "Semper Virgo? A Biblical Review of a Debated Dogma" falls under WP:BESTSOURCES for this topic (it goes through most of the sources of evidence and interpretations for this topic {much more than I've seen with other scholarly works on this} in a scholarly way and tone). Nevertheless, I am always one for attribution. However, any notion or hint that a Catholic cannot be or is inherently a less reliable Bible scholar due to his/her faith would be a faulty understanding of Wikipedia's rules/guidelines (not saying you say that but just to be clear). I think that would be rather unfair to scholars like Leopold Fonck, cited in Authorship of the Bible, Joshua Noble, Pheme Perkins, Joseph Fitzmyer, André Villeneuve, Lawrence Boadt, Joseph Blenkinsopp, and Luke Timothy Johnson.

Sidenote, but also you say "Hahn takes at face value a dialogue that is broadly seen as historically unreliable. Pretty weak sauce." but (1) that in no way counters the notion that the author of that Gospel would have at least had that intent in mind while writing that and would have been in a position to actually know, or at least have greater certainty of, that. (2) In addition, I believe this entire thread is on the "biblical basis" of the doctrine, not the historicity. And (3) honestly, it would probably be considered by most that the point of greater importance is whether the first Christians believed that or if it is implied in the text anyway. (4) The modern scholarship on the historicity of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary also takes up literally none of the Wiki article, btw.

I think I have both properly fulfilled your request and have shown scholarly support for the claim that there is at least some Biblical support (not explicit proof, of course) for the Perpetual Virginity. I hope this has helped move forward the discussion of this thread.

CosmicLycanroc (talk) 08:42, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Is a "red herring" not allowed to be used on Wikipedia? Nolicmahr (talk) 17:08, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

@Nolicmahr: If Mary had other children, it may falsify that she remained a virgin. But even if she had no other child, it does not count as evidence for her eternal virginity. E.g. a scenario like: Joseph was too old and impotent, then Joseph died, then Mary remarried and she had sexual relations, but her new husband was infertile, so they could have no children together. It is not supported by the Bible, but it is also not contradicted by the Bible. And historians have no way to know if she never had sexual relations after giving birth to Jesus. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:41, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

The Bible is not clear and has incomplete information on "if Mary had other children". Who says the Bible contradicts the Perpetual Virginity? The dogma is about interpretations of Bible passages, not from scenarios and speculation. And the majority ie most Christian denominations have accepted the dogma, regardless of speculation. Nolicmahr (talk) 19:54, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

@Nolicmahr: So, then it is not a historical fact, but a theological claim. Historical facts need empirical evidence, theological claims do not need empirical evidence. Then simply use WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV say which churches believe that and which churches don't buy it. But don't say that it is based upon the Bible. The judges of what can be logically inferred from the Bible are mainstream Bible scholars, not theologians. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:57, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Those scenarios and speculation mentioned above are minority views ie WP:Fringe. More specifically Biblical literalists, non denominational Bible believers, and Evangelicals (Born again). Nolicmahr (talk) 20:06, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

@Nolicmahr: You conflate WP:FRINGE in respect to historiography with WP:FRINGE is respect to theology. There are over 600 million evangelicals, so obviously they are not theologically fringe (even if most evangelical Bible scholars are fringe in respect to mainstream Bible scholarship). tgeorgescu (talk) 20:11, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Dogmas based on both are Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition in churches with Apostolic Succession and Catholic Doctrine. It is a "fact" that Adelphoi in the original Greek Bible has multiple meanings, other than biological brothers. The earlier text in the article now removed, did not take this "fact" into account, an unverifiable source to say there is "no Biblical basis" for the dogma. Nolicmahr (talk) 20:25, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

@Nolicmahr: I really don't care about what Adelphoi means. That meaning can only be used for falsifying the eternal virginity of Mary, it can never be used as positive evidence for it. According to WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV we write the Catholic Church believes this, evangelicals believe that. And then every POV of every big church gets represented in the article. I don't think you are on the same page with me: the Bible could be construed by some as evidence against the eternal virginity, it can never be construed as evidence for the eternal virginity. Mary gets barely mentioned in the whole Bible and her sexuality is simply not described in the Bible. So, there is no biblical evidence addressing the sexuality of Mary. There is no biblical evidence that she has sexual relations and no biblical evidence that she did not have sexual relations. The Bible simply is not concerned with the question if Mary ever had sexual relations. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:34, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

The majority of Christian denominations do care about what Adelphoi means.

You said "There is no biblical evidence that she has sexual relations and no biblical evidence that she did not have sexual relations." Agreed. That exactly was why I started this discussion and exactly why there is no biblical basis for it, the information in it not enough. And I am all for representing the differing POVs fairly. Nolicmahr (talk) 20:50, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps I don't care because... I am not a Christian and have no dog in this fight.

Let me be frank with you: the perpetual virginity is a theological development which was invented after the Bible had been written. That's why you don't find it in the Bible. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:54, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

@Nolicmahr: So, I'm not saying that it would be theologically true or theologically false. I'm saying that it is a later theological development, i.e. later than the Bible. And I've WP:CITED two WP:RS to that extent, one is a theological encyclopedia which was already cited in the article, and the other is a secular scholarly source from Oxford University Press.

Generally speaking I don't consider Christian theology to be true, but that's not what I'm saying in the article. The article is for encyclopedic information, not for ventilating my own personal opinions. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:39, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Mary the Second Eve

I'm moving this from the article because I can't see any connection with perpetual virginity - and even if there is one it doesn't need so much length. Nevertheless it's well written and perhaps could be spun off as a separate article?

13th century Byzantine Eleusa depiction, of Madonna and Child, Athens

As of the fourth century, in discussing God's plan of salvation, a parallel theme began to appear in which Mary's obedience ("be it unto me according to thy word" in Luke 1:38) and the doctrine of perpetual virginity were counter-positioned against Adam and Eve, just as Jesus' obedience was counter-positioned against that of Adam in Romans 5:12–21.

The concept of Mary as the Second Eve was first introduced by Justin Martyr around 155 AD. In this perspective, which was discussed in detail by Irenaeus, supported by Jerome, and then grew further, the vow of obedience and virginity of Mary positioned her as the "Second Eve" as part of the plan of salvation, just as Jesus was positioned as the Second Adam.

The theme developed by the Church Fathers ran parallel to the theme developed by Apostle Paul in Romans 5:19 when he compared Adam's sin with the obedience of Jesus to the will of the Father: "For just as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous." In the same manner, Mary's obedience to the statements of the angel, and her adherence to her vow of perpetual virginity, was seen as a remedy for the damage caused by Eve.

The Second Eve teaching continued to grow among Catholics, and in discussing perpetual virginity, the 1566 Catechism of the Council of Trent explicitly taught that while Eve by believing the serpent brought malediction on the human race, Mary by believing the angel brought benediction to mankind.

The concept of the Second Eve has continued to remain part of Catholic teachings, e.g. Pope Pius XII referred to it in the encyclical Mystici corporis Christi and Pope John Paul II referred to it in a General Audience at the Vatican in 1980.

References

there is an article on the New Eve and New Adam already for anybody interested in them Nolicmahr (talk) 19:21, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Selectively archived "No biblical basis" is POV?

Just noticed the disappearance of the discussion Special:Diff/1042259160 into the archives, it's just about two months old.

I am unable to know what the reason is for this action

Another editor had commented just last week, so must still be kept open for debates for some time, at least 6 months or so. Nolicmahr (talk) 18:56, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Any idea on how long should discussions can be kept open as per WP guidelines? Nolicmahr (talk) 19:12, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

I changed the counter to 180 days. Threads are only archived if there's no new activity. Achar Sva (talk) 03:03, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

The last activity on that thread was back in July. If you want to come back to the subject you can start a new thread. Achar Sva (talk) 08:38, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Discussion of the entire article

User Rafaelosornio, let's stop the endless edit-warring and discuss the alternatives. Here is what I regard as the best version of the lead - three paras, in bullet form. Please tell me what you regard as unacceptable (and why), and what as acceptable. Achar Sva (talk) 21:58, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• The perpetual virginity of Mary is the doctrine that Mary, the mother of Jesus Christ, was a virgin ante partum, in partu, et post partum—before, during and after the birth of Christ.

• The major problems facing the doctrine are that the New Testament explicitly affirms Mary's virginity only prior to the conception of Jesus, not during or after, and that it mentions his brothers, (adelphoi), with Mark and Matthew recording their names and Mark adding unnamed sisters. Further scriptural difficulties are added by Luke 2:6, which calls Jesus the "first-born" son of Mary, implying further children, but the word adelphos only very rarely carries any other meaning than a physical or spiritual sibling, and the most natural inference is that Joseph and Mary had further children after Jesus.

• The tradition of the perpetual virginity of Mary first appears in a late 2nd century text called the Protoevangelium of James, and came to be included in the thinking of theologians in the 4th century due to the writings of the Church Father Ambrose. It was established as orthodoxy at the Council of Ephesus in 431, the Second Council of Constantinople in 553 gave her the title "Aeiparthenons", meaning Perpetual Virgin, and at the Lateran Synod of 649 Pope Martin I emphasised the threefold character of the perpetual virginity, before, during, and after the birth of Christ.

Some of the early reformers, including Martin Luther, accepted the belief, but modern Protestants have largely rejected it.

References

Achar Sva (talk) 23:07, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Reply by Rafaelosornio

"Achar Sva" Why are you bent on eliminating the following? I need an explanation:

• It is one of the four Marian dogmas of the Catholic Church, and is held also by the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Oriental Orthodox Church and by some Lutherans. Most Protestant churches, however, today reject it as a dogma.

The New Testament explicitly affirms her virginity only prior to the conception of Jesus and mentions his brothers (adelphoi). For the Catholic Church the adelphoi are cousins of Jesus, while for the Orthodox Church they are step-brothers, children of Joseph from a previous marriage. The official acts of the Fifth Ecumenical Council held at Constantinople in 553 refer to Mary as Aeiparthenos (ever-virgin in Greek). Several ancient Christian theologians such as Athanasius of Alexandria, Jerome, Augustine of Hippo, and Origen staunchly defended the dogma of the perpetual virginity.

The word adelphos only very rarely carries any other meaning than a physical or spiritual sibling. The most natural inference for adelphos is that these may have been sons of Mary and Joseph, born after Christ; although the Septuagint, the translation used by the New Testament authors, does use adelphoi to refer to non-fraternal relatives, notably in Genesis 14:14, where Lot is referred to as adelphos of Abraham, even though he is not a blood brother.

References

Rafaelosornio (talk) 22:51, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Reply by Achar Sva

I've merged the two new threads you started into the original one so that the whole discussion can be more easily followed. As I said when I started the thread, I think the best way forward is to take one version of the lead and discuss it, without introducing material not contained in it. You've done that with regard to the following sentence which you'd like to see kept at the end of the first paragraph:

• It is one of the four Marian dogmas of the Catholic Church, and is held also by the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Oriental Orthodox Church and by some Lutherans. Most Protestant churches, however, today reject it as a dogma.

I have no objection to saying the Perpetual Virginity is one of the four Marian dogmas or spelling out who holds it - in fact I think that's essential information. But the sources you use aren't RS - they're websites of unknown authority. If you can find acadenmic sources that give the same information I'll be happy to use them. (In fact the line about the four Marian dogmas was one I wrote myself, long ago, but I used different sources - if those could be recovered it would be useful)
Let's stick to this one point for now, as a shotgun approach will only lead to confusion.

References

Achar Sva (talk) 23:07, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Reply by Rafaelosornio

Really, you want other sources to say that it is a dogma by the Catholic Church and Ortodox Church? If for you it's not a dogma, it's not my problem.--Rafaelosornio (talk) 05:08, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Reply by Achar Sva

Rafaelosornio, please use the discussion in a disciplined way. I asked if you have a problem with the first para. If you do, we can discuss solution, if you don't we can move on to the next para. Do you have a problem with this sentence, the first in the article? Achar Sva (talk) 05:26, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• The perpetual virginity of Mary is the doctrine that Mary, the mother of Jesus Christ, was a virgin ante partum, in partu, et post partum—before, during and after the birth of Christ."

Reply by Rafaelosornio

No problem with the first paragraph. Then... The next one, Is it a dogma, yes or no, and by who is a dogma? Why you are trying to delete it?Rafaelosornio (talk) 05:42, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not trying to delete it (i.e., the information), I'm trying to make sure it's well sourced. "Well sourced" in an academic article like this means academic sources, which the two you provided are not. I'll have a look tonight and get back to you with a proposal tomorrow. Achar Sva (talk) 06:43, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I've added a sentence on modern acceptance (and non-acceptance), with proper academic sources, all drawn from the body of the article. Is this acceptable to you? (Bear in mind that the lead has to be a brief overview, not a detailed exposition).

• It is one of the four Marian dogmas of the Catholic Church, and the Eastern Orthodox Church recognizes Mary as Aeiparthenos, meaning "ever-virgin", but modern Protestants have largely rejected it.

References

Modern proposal. The user Achar Sva is altering the sources

According to the user "Achar Sva" the Mary of Clopas mentioned in John 9:25 is not the sister of Mary, BUT... the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church says something else completely different:

The Oxford Dictionary says "Mary, mother of James and Joses", THIS NEVER APPEARS on John 9:25. John 9:25 NEVER says "Mary, mother of James and Joses". The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church says the following:

A modern proposal considers these adelphoi sons of "Mary, the mother of James and Joses" (not here identified with the Virgin Mary's sister), and Clopas, who according to Hegesippus was Joseph's brother.

The Oxford Dictionary refers to the Mary, the mother of James and Joses, not to the Mary of Clopas mentioned in John 9:25.--Rafaelosornio (talk) 22:46, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

We haven't finished with the first para of the lead, and the sentence on modern acceptance: see the section immediately above this. Achar Sva (talk) 09:24, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

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)

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)