In nearly every discussion about the Perpetual Virginity of Mary that I've come across, the debate almost always comes down to whether the "brothers and sisters" mentioned a few times in the Gospels were biological children or if this was just an ancient way of referring to cousins (which I hold to). But what if it was neither? The past few days, I got the inspiration to realize that there is indeed another possibility that Protestants don't consider: adoption! Why not? Remember that the underlying actual goal of the Protestant side is to attack Catholicism by attacking Mary, so if the "brothers and sisters" aren't biological children then their anti-Catholic mission has failed. The adoption possibility doesn't seem to be an explanation that I've ever come across, which is strange because it easily counters the Protestant when they reject the standard Catholic cousin explanation. It was actually very common in ancient times for parents to die of diseases and such, since there wasn't modern medicine or sanitation. So it was not uncommon for children of the same region, neighborhood, relatives, tribe, etc, to adopt those orphaned children. Could this be why James, the "brother" of Jesus, speaks so highly of taking care of orphans? (James 1:27) The genealogy lists that Matthew and Luke give list different forefathers at some points, but this is easily explained by the reality that some of those sons/fathers were adopted, and thus lineages crossed, but since it was all within the same Tribe of Judah, it was ultimately the same lineage. What is a Protestant really going to do if you respond by saying "yes, but these were adopted children"? The Protestant will realize that they cannot simply presume, and thus their argument is instantly deflated. Plus, we are all truly the brothers of Jesus by adoption in the spiritual sense, and would even extend that into being adopted by Mary (and Joseph), which is how many Catholic spiritual writers have understood the "rest of her children" in reference to Mary in Revelation 12:17.
9 comments:
When i saw the title i was pretty suprised, thankfully my expectations where wrong!
That is a pretty creative idea, i don't remember ever coming across that. As usual,i like that you show that there are a lot of presupositions on our reading of a certain piece of Scripture that we usually don't see.
About the adoption view: i dunno, i find it pretty weak. The genealogy point is interesting, but i still find strange the early church did not suggested that or that Our Lord told Our Lady that she should stay with St. John and not with St. James or another brother when He was at the cross.
The cousins view seems the better one to me still, but you did have a cool idea.
I should clarify that I'm not saying I personally believe the adoption view, but only that it is "reasonable" within the Protestant accusation of "brothers & sisters" can only mean biological siblings. Protestants already do not accept the brothers=cousins argument, so that doesn't really do much for them (not that Catholics should even care!).
I hold that the Holy Family was always just Jesus, Mary, and Joseph as being the most reasonable, traditional, and fits the Biblical evidence the best.
I updated the wording in the original post so that people don't get the impression that I hold that adoption actually took place rather than a mere logical possibility if brothers weren't cousins.
I think you need to provide some kind of evidence or argumentation to support the adoption explanation, not just that it is possible.
But, along similar lines, I understand that the tradition older than "cousins" is that Jesus' siblings are children of Joseph by a previous marriage from which he was widowed. This explains why he would be willing to marry a young girl who never expected to have a child (according to Mary's surprised response to Gabriel in Luke 1:34), but more importantly, how Jesus' siblings act toward him. The gospels make clear that Jesus is Mary's first born (Luke 2:7), so he would be the eldest to any other children she had, but in Luke 8:19 and Mark 3:31–32, his mother and brothers approach Jesus and expect to be able to interrupt his teaching. They could not do this if he is older than they, but since they do, Jesus must be younger, and so they could only be his step siblings, which the ancient customs and languages do not distinguish from full siblings.
FWIW some of this is documented in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brothers_of_Jesus
Joe, the main weakness I see with the theory that Joseph had children from a prior marriage is that when Joseph had to go to Bethlehem to be enrolled, there is no mention of other children coming along. Same when Joseph had to flee to Egypt, nobody except Mary and Jesus are mentioned.
I think that the claim the brothers could not confront Jesus if they were younger makes sense, but this argument can be equally argued they are older cousins or older children adopted later on.
A further argument in favor of the "pior marriage" hypothesis is that St. Joseph seemed to have died before Our Lord ministry begun, seeing that he never is mentioned as doing something after Jesus infancy, which suggest that he was not that young when he married Our Lady. One could reply by noticing that life expectations back them where pretty low, but that is because infant mortality was high in the ancient world, if you could become a adult there you would usually live a lot, the Bible does mentions a lot of old people.
Not that i agree with this view, Nick objections seems strong to me. But the most relevant part is that we have some hypothesis we can use, so there is no need to defend that Mary had others kids.
I think part of the tradition that St. Joseph had children older than Jesus by a prior marriage is that he was quite a bit older than the Blessed Mother, and so those children were already grown and so did not accompany him and Mary to Bethlehem or Egypt. No explanation for the "brothers and sisters of the Lord" is completely clear and obvious. The only thing that matters for the faith is that Jesus is Mary's only child, and the idea that younger siblings could not confront their elder brother supports that. Whether these older relatives were cousins, step-siblings or adopted siblings doesn't really matter and is not clear from the texts. It is clear that they are not younger than Jesus, and so are not Mary's other children (except as they 'do the will of [Jesus's] Heavenly Father' and so are her spiritual children (per Rev. 12:17) - which James the Just, at least, seems to have done).
If James, Joses, Simon or Jude were sons of Joseph by a previous marriage, the eldest of those men would have been in line to inherit the title of the new King David, not Jesus. Remember that Matthew´s geneology goes through the Davidic kings down to Joseph, "son of David".
But, yes, Joseph is the key to Mary`s Perpetual Virginity. The book of Numbers says a woman could not take a vow without her husband´s permission.
I think the best explanation is one used by Aquinas. Just as Jesus is the only Son of his Father,it is only fitting that He be the only son of His mother as the Son of Mary and the Son of God come to term in the same Person.
Keep in mind that the Virgin Birth was not necessary. Jesus could have been born of the union of Jospeh and Mary. Many people think Christ would have inherited Original Sin if He had a human as well as a Divine Father but this is not true. It was fitting, not necessary that He be born of a Virgin.
Finally, one last little tidbit; Abishag was married to David with the intention of not having relations with him. If she wasn´t a wife, she was at least a concubine which would give her a semi-wife status. Her status was more than a mere bed warmer. We know this from the fact that Adonijah was killed by Solomon for suggesting she become his wife or concubine.
Scholars no longer say that vows of celibacy were unknown th the Jews, even married ones.
I think the best explanation is the Jerome´s, that Joseph and Mary were both consecrated virgins.
PS;
Aquinas also said it is unbecoming to suggest the holiest of God´s creatures would ever be so ungrateful, after having been preserved a Virgin both in conception and in giving birth only to turn around and throw it away.
He also said it is insulting to St. Joseph to suggest he would have had so little regard for what the Holy Spirit had done in Mary to have relations with her.
Recall that the king of babylon was killed for eating off plates that had been consecrated to God for a holy purpose. Eating, like marital relations, is nota sin. Still, to profane something holy is merely to use it for a mundane purpose.
Post a Comment