The Perpetual Virginity of Mary: Regarding Some Assertions of Ibarreta

Victoriano Larrañaga, "La Virginidad Perpetua de María: A Propósito de una Página de Ibarreta," Razón y Fe, Vol. 110 (1936) pp. 5-22, translated and edited by Ben Douglass.

"One thing is beyond a doubt," writes Rogelio Herques de Ibarreta,

and that is that by the evangelists' own testimony, Jesus' countrymen knew nothing of the miracle of His conception; since having begun to preach in His hometown, they paid Him no heed, saying, "Is this not the carpenter's Son? Is not His mother called Mary? And are not His brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And are not all His sisters with us?" The quotations above are copied, word for word, from what the Holy Spirit says by the mouth of St. Matthew in his Gospel (13:55-58), and by St. Mark's in his (6:3-5).

Moreover, nothing appears in the Gospels with such clarity as that Jesus Christ had, not only relatives, as the Roman Church tells us, but blood brothers, sons of Joseph and Mary, and as such, non-Roman Christians are completely right to deny the perpetual virginity of that woman (cf. Mt 1:25; 12:47; Mk 3:31-32; Lk 8:19-20; Jn 6:42).

We regret, with these quotations, to deprive the single of the pleasant illusion regarding her whom they call, par excellence, the Virgin; but, on the other hand, the married will see that Mary fulfilled the express command which God Himself gave to the first humans: "Be fruitful and multiply" (Gen 1:28).

This commandment, God's first, demonstrates that, contrary to the teaching of the Roman Church, the state of fathers and mothers of families is that most agreeable in the eyes of God. Among the Israelites, that is to say the elect people of God, it was considered as a dishonor that a woman should remain single, and sterility was looked upon as a divine malediction. Even today, among Christians who are not Roman Catholics, who form the majority, the single priest is looked upon negatively.¹

This page, from the man who ended his days with suicide, firing a revolver round into himself in the Casino of Montecarlo, after having put out the torch of faith in many souls with his book Religion within the Reach of All, brings to the Spanish public, in formulas deriving more from leftist conclaves than from science, the old heterodox opinion of Ebion, Ceslus and Valentinus, of Helvidius, Jovinian and Bonosus of Sardica, centuries ago rebutted by St. Jerome, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, and Mary's chaplain St. Ildephonsus of Toledo. Modern heterodox science, for its part, has echoed the ancient heresy, from the Socinians and their legitimate heirs the rationalists, with H. J. Holtzmann, Johannes Weiss, Eduard Meyer, and Bousset, to the conservative Protestants Godet, Bernhard Weiss, Theodor Zahn, and Plummer, the Jewish professors Montefiore and Klausner, and the excommunicated priest Turmel, who, under the pseudonym Coulange, published in 1925 a small volume against the perpetual virginity of Mary in the Paris series Le Christianisme, edited by Couchoud.

Nevertheless, the Catholic dogma flows with clarity from the historical New Testament sources, and finds magnificent confirmation in the tradition of the first centuries.²

Historical Proofs of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary

Let us briefly recall them here, before responding to the contrary objections:

1) The Catholic dogma finds support, above all, in the account of the Annunciation (Lk 1:26-39), and in particular, in Mary's response to the Angel (Lk 1:34): "How can this be, since I do not know man?" Formulated thus, the objection to the announcement of the conception of the Messiah presupposes that Mary desires to remain a virgin, and desires this at all cost, preferring her virginity even to the dignity of the Mother of God, which the Angel offers her.

2) The whole history of the infancy, and in particular the account of the finding of Jesus in the temple (Lk 2:41-52) makes one see that joined to Mary and Joseph there is no other child besides the one, which is Jesus.

3) Later, in His public life, Jesus is called by His home townsfolk of Nazareth, "the Son of Mary" (Mk 6:3). This presupposes, as Renan already recognized, that for an extended time Jesus was known as the only son of a widow, for such appellatives are not used, in fact, as he added, except when the father has passed away and the widow does not have other children.³

4) The attitude which the "brothers of the Lord" take toward Jesus is that of older brothers with respect to a younger brother: recall the scene in Capernaum (Mk 3:21-24), and the scene which precedes the feast of Tabernacles (Jn 7:1-11). Well now, it is clear that Jesus was Mary's firstborn (Lk 2:7, 22-24; Mt 1:25).

5) While dying on the Cross, Jesus confided the person of His Mother, with the tenderness characteristic of an only son, to the Apostle St. John: certainly an incomprehensible action, if He could rely on brothers and sisters, up to six in number, as our adversaries maintain.⁴

6) These proofs, which appear in the historical Gospel sources, are splendidly confirmed by tradition, "which supplies us here, not only with a dogmatic argument, but also a historical argument," as Fr. Lebreton observes. "Suppose for a moment the thesis defended by Helvidius: Mary is the mother of seven children, and among them James, the Bishop of Jerusalem, Joseph, Jude, and Simon, so well-known by the whole Church of Palestine. How can one conceive that within that Church the perpetual virginity of Mary could have been admitted, and this at a date and in an environment in which ascetic tendencies were not even dominant?"⁵ "Pray tell me," St. Jerome could ask in his century, "who, before you appeared, was acquainted with this blasphemy?" "Might I not array against you," the holy Doctor continues, "the whole series of ancient writers? Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, and many other apostolic and eloquent men, who against Ebion, Theodotus of Byzantium, and Valentinus, held these same views, and wrote volumes replete with wisdom. If you had ever read what they wrote, you would be a wiser man."⁶

And in this campaign undertaken in defense of the perpetual virginity of Mary, on the occasion of Helvidius' first more methodical attacks, St. Jerome was supported by as many learned and illustrious men as the Christian world then counted. In the East: St. John Chrysostom, St. Cyril of Alexandria, Theodoret, not to mention St. Epiphanius and St. Basil, who preceded them. In the West: St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, Ambrosiaster, and Pelagius himself, as Fr. Durand observes.⁷

Against these historical proofs, what force have the objections presented on behalf of heresy? The principal objections are two, although Ibarreta appeared only to be familiar with the first: the historical sources speak clearly of the brothers of the Lord, and Jesus Himself is repeatedly called the firstborn of Mary, which indicates that other siblings followed Him, children likewise of Mary.

The Expression "The Brothers of the Lord"

With respect to this first objection, St. Augustine already accurately observed as follows, commenting on the passage of John 2:12: "He went down to Capernaum, with His mother and his brothers and His disciples; and there they stayed for a few days."

Behold He has a mother, and brethren, and disciples... The Scripture must be understood as it speaks. It has its own language; one who does not know this language is perplexed and says, Whence had the Lord brethren? For surely Mary did not give birth a second time? Far from it! With her begins the dignity of virgins... Then, whence the brethren? The kinsmen of Mary, of whatever degree, are the brethren of the Lord. How do we prove this? From Scripture itself. Lot is called "Abraham's brother;" he was his brother's son. Read, and you will find that Abraham was Lot's uncle on the father's side, and yet they are called brethren (Gen 11:31). Why, but because they were kinsmen? Laban the Syrian was Jacob's uncle by the mother's side, for he was the brother of Rebecca, Isaac's wife and Jacob's mother (Gen 28:5). Read the Scripture, and you will find that uncle and sister's son are called brothers (Gen 29:12-15). When you have known this rule, you will find that all the blood relations of Mary are the brethren of Christ.⁸

St. Augustine was right. It is well known that the Hebrew term ah and the corresponding Aramaic aha, in their respective literatures, not only designate blood brothers and brothers-in-law, although this is their most common signification, but that they are also applied between uncles and nephews, between cousins and relatives of whatever degree, and even between mere countrymen. It suffices to look through a few cases in the pages of the Old Testament:

Gen 13:8: "For we are brothers," between Abraham and Lot, his nephew.
Gen 19:7: "I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly," directing himself to simple countrymen.
Gen 29:15: "For we are brothers," between Laban and Jacob, his nephew.
Lev 10:4: "Carry the bodies of your brothers," that is to say, of Nadab and Abihu, sons of Aaron and cousins once removed of Mishael and Elzaphan, sons of Uzziel, paternal uncle of Aaron.
2 Kngs 10:13: "We are the brothers of Ahaziah," meaning distant relatives.
1 Chr 23:22: "The sons of Kish took their sisters for wives," that is to say, the daughters of Eleazar, brother of Kish, meaning, as such, cousins by blood.

For the usage of the Aramaic language in particular, Père Lagrange cites an inscription found in Pananmou, in which mention is made of no less than 70 brothers, doubtless in the same wide sense of the expression.

And something very noteworthy still is the fact that the Hebrew and Aramaic languages lack a distinct word to indicate "cousin." This being the case, why should it be strange that, in the absence of a distinct term, the written and oral Gospel tradition would turn to the nearest term, "brother," one of the meanings of which, consecrated by use, was precisely that of "cousin"? Especially with the so-called "brothers of the Lord" being known by all as such among the first Christian communities.

It is known, additionally, that the linguistic-literary phenomenon here noted is not exclusive to Hebrew and Aramaic language and literature. A similar phenomenon occurs regarding the same expression, "brother," in the language and literature of China, of Russia, and of other peoples.⁹

Ibarreta does not appear to suspect any of this in the passage quoted above. St. Jerome grew scathing, in his way, against Helvidius.

There are things which, in your extreme ignorance, you had never read, and therefore you neglected the whole range of Scripture and employed your madness in outraging the Virgin, like the man in the story who being unknown to everybody and finding that he could devise no good deed by which to gain renown, burned the temple of Diana: and when no one revealed the sacrilegious act, it is said that he himself went up and down proclaiming that he was the man who had applied the fire. The rulers of Ephesus were curious to know what made him do this thing, whereupon he replied that if he could not have fame for good deeds, all men should give him credit for bad ones. Grecian history relates the incident. But you do worse. You have set on fire the temple of the Lord's body, you have defiled the sanctuary of the Holy Spirit... You have gained your desire, and have become notorious by crime. For myself who am your opponent, although we live in the same city, I don't know, as the saying is, whether you are white or black. I pass over faults of diction which abound in every book you write. I say not a word about your absurd introduction. Good heavens! I do not ask for eloquence, since, having none yourself, you applied for a supply of it to your brother Craterius. I do not ask for grace of style, I look for purity of soul: for with Christians it is the greatest of solecisms and of vices of style to introduce anything base either in word or action.¹⁰

All the same, if Ibarreta, since he did not grasp these nuances, did not, Turmel at least has raised some objections to this solution. "What," he asks,

are these brothers? If we consult the Hebrew language, we discover that, in fact, it lavishes the title of brother with the greatest liberality, applying it to relatives of whatever degree they may be. But just a moment of reflection suffices to understand that we should not appeal to the Hebrew language on this point. None of the many documents from which we have drawn, not even the Gospel of St. Matthew, was redacted in Hebrew; rather they all were redacted in Greek. Only the Greek language has, then, a vote in the matter, and to it we must have recourse in this dispute. Well now, the Greek language, whose richness of vocabulary is well known, makes use of one term to designate the sons of the same mother, and of another to designate the sons of an uncle or of an aunt. To the latter are given the name of "cousins," that of "brothers" being reserved for the former. In that language the confusion between the one and the other is in any event impossible. And this observation authorizes us to conclude that the brothers of whom St. Paul and the evangelists speak were brothers of Jesus in the strict sense of the word, that their mother was the Mother of Jesus herself.¹¹

He has not been able to weaken the argument any more than that, even though the position is of one who despairs of being able to sustain himself on the terrain of Hebrew and Aramaic. But not even thus do the points of view upon which our reasoning is founded fall flat. Turmel intentionally keeps quiet about the Hebrew or Aramaic origin of our writers, with the exception of St. Luke, who was probably of Antiochene origin, but who likewise constructed his narrative upon Aramaic sources, written or oral. Thence the fact of the Aramaic linguistic background and substrate, nowadays so recognized in the field of literary studies of the New Testament, which has carried scholars to such extreme theories as that of a primitive fourth Gospel, written originally in Aramaic and later translated into Greek, as Burney opines, or that of a first part of the book of Acts redacted likewise in Aramaic and translated afterward into Greek, as Torrey sustains. They are extreme positions, which the sane critic rejects; but the background of the frequent Aramaisms, above all when reproducing expressions and words of Palestinian characters, nobody denies; neither will anyone refuse to admit Aramaic sources, oral or written, which have served as a base for the composition of our Gospel accounts. And the term "brothers" occurs, in fact, as fixed already in an Aramaic formula which runs on the lips of Jesus' countrymen (Mt 13:54-57): "And coming to His own country He taught them in their synagogue, so that they were astonished, and said, 'Where did this man get this wisdom and these mighty works? Is this not the carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mary? And are not His brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And are not all His sisters with us? Where then did this man get all this?'"

The Hebrew and Aramaic expression, furthermore, had previously opened a way for itself to be consecrated in the corresponding Greek via the Septuagint: the texts in which ah, ahim appear, expressing indistinctly blood brothers, nephews, cousins, relatives in general, and even mere countrymen, in the original Hebrew, had been translated in the Septuagint with the term adelphos, adelphoi. With that readers were accustomed to that widening of the sense of the Greek term to the same extension, explained above, as the corresponding Hebrew and Aramaic terms.

We note, finally, that Hegesippus, a native of Palestine and born in the first quarter of the second century, "vicinus apostolicorum temporum," as St. Jerome calls him, and well esteemed as a historian, as much by Jerome as by Eusebius, and who finished his Memoirs, already at a very advanced age, in the days of Pope Eleutherius (175-189), already gave the express title of "cousin" to Simeon, successor of St. James the Less in the see of Jerusalem, thus offering us the key to the solution, or put better, conserving for us in writing an echo of the primitive tradition, which interpreted thus in the Greco-Roman world the Aramaic expression "brothers of the Lord." The text of Hegesippus, transmitted by Eusebius, says this: "And after James the Just had suffered martyrdom, as the Lord had also on the same account, Simeon, the son of the Lord's uncle, Clopas, was appointed the next bishop [of Jerusalem]. All proposed him as second bishop because he was a cousin of the Lord."¹²

The second argument against the perpetual virginity of Mary has been taken - who could have imagined! - from the evangelist par excellence of the virginity of Our Lady (Lk 2:7): "And she gave birth to her first-born Son."¹³ From this it has been concluded as self-evident: "If the first, then not the only; and if the only, then not the first," as Lucian of Samosata said in Demonax, 29. And more recently Godet: "The term firstborn of itself presupposes that Mary has had other children after Him."¹⁴

To this it has been responded, since the times of St. Jerome, that the concept of the firstborn prescinds from whether others follow or not, and that even the only-begotten will always be the firstborn, regardless if no one follows him in the series.¹⁵

Nevertheless, even such a generally judicious spirit as the Anglican Plummer urged: "The expression might certainly be used without implying that there had been subsequent children. But it implies the possibility of subsequent children, and when Luke wrote this possibility had been decided. Would he have used such an expression if it was then known that Mary had never had another child? He might have avoided all ambiguity by writing monogenén."¹⁶ All the more so, since St. Luke well knows how to distinguish, by this term, when he is speaking of an only son, as in the case of the dead son of the Widow of Nain (Lk 7:12).

Here as well the response on the part of Catholic authors has been satisfactory: they pointed out that St. Luke intentionally notes that Jesus was the firstborn of Mary because, as such, He was subject to the law of the presentation in the Temple after forty days, about which the evangelist would speak to us in the immediate context (Lk 2:22-23): "And when the time came for their purification according to the law of Moses, they brought Him up to Jerusalem to present Him to the Lord (as it is written in the law of the Lord, 'Every male that opens the womb shall be called holy to the Lord.')" And in fact, Exodus 13:2, 12-15 legislated regarding firstborn males that they had to be consecrated to the Lord. With this the term, bekor = firstborn had come to be the proper and quasi-technical term for the child born first, whether speaking of an only child, or the first in a series of two or more of them.

In order for our adversaries' argument, "if the first, then not the only; and if the only, then not the first," to be valid, we would have to except only sons from the law of Moses, since "if the only, then not the first," and the law speaks of firstborn. However, no one in the history of Israel ever gave the law such an interpretation, for in fact the concept of the firstborn is that of the child born first, whether or not others follow after him.

On the other hand, in the case of the dead son of the widow of Nain, the reason for preferring the term "only-begotten" is clear: St. Luke wanted to portray the widow's pain over the loss of her only son. Contrariwise, in our case, the context lent itself better to the use of the term "firstborn" rather than "only-begotten," as has been explained.

Even so, not only extremist rationalism, but even conservative Protestantism persisted in maintaining the contrary objection, describing the Catholic response as simply evasive. However, the epitaph of Arsinoe, published among fourteen other new inscriptions found in Tel el-Yehudieh, probably the ancient Leontopolis in Egypt, and coming from an important Jewish necropolis from the time of emperor Augustus, by C. C. Edgar in the Annales du service des Antiquités de l'Égypte in 1922, has cleared away all doubts, proving wrong those who threw in our face that we proceeded more by dogmatic prejudices than by pure historical facts in our response.

The epitaph, written in Greek on a rectangular stela with a toothed cornice, elevated pediment and pedestal, 0.675 meters high and 0.30 wide, says this:

This is the grave of Arsinoe, wayfarer. Stand by and weep for her, unfortunate in all things, whose lot was hard and terrible. For I was bereaved of my mother when I was a little girl, and when the flower of my youth made me ready for a bridegroom, my father married me to Phabeis, and fate brought me to the end of my life in bearing my firstborn child. I had a small span of years, but great grace flowered in the beauty of my spirit. This grave hides in its bosom my chaste body, but my soul has flown to the holy ones.
Lament for Arsinoe, in the 25th year, Mechir 2.
[English translation from Ross Shepard Kraemer, Women's religions in the Greco-Roman world: a sourcebook (Oxford University Press, 2004) p. 122.]

It speaks of the misfortune of a young wife of the Jewish Diaspora; and the year 25, to which the epitaph alludes, refers, by all appearances, to the reign of Augustus. The date indicated would thus correspond to January 28 of the year 5 B.C. It was perhaps that very year when, not far from Egypt, Mary also brought to light her firstborn Son in Bethlehem of Judah.

Catholic authors have not failed to develop the consequences for our problem which flow from the epitaph and its use of the very term protótochos = firstborn. Fr. Frey, who presented his study on the epitaph of Arsinoe in 1930 in the Roman journal Biblica, pp. 385-390, sums up his conclusions thus:

1. It is not certain that the term "firstborn" is always employed in a relative sense, that is, in relation to other children born after the first.

2. From the fact that a mother has brought to light her firstborn, it does not follow that she has had other children after him.

3. The term "firstborn" does not imply either the reality or the possibility of the birth of other children, but prescinds from it. Arsinoe, having died in the birth of her firstborn, was incapacitated from bringing more children to light.

4. The use of the term "firstborn" by the pen of a historian who narrates after the facts, does not suggest the idea that he had in his mind a latter conception and birth. The family of Arsinoe and the Jewish community of Leontopolis knew, upon engraving the epitaph and speaking in it of the firstborn of the espoused youth, that that son had been the first and the last.

5. It is not contradictory, as we have been told up till now, that "the firstborn son" should be at the same time "the only-begotten son." The son of Arsinoe was both.

6. Nor has it been proved that the term "only-begotten" would have been more appropriate in our case. One might wish to set in relief the misfortune of a mother who found death in the pains of her first birth; but it is equally appropriate to wish to insist on the idea of the son who, opening the maternal womb, falls under the legal prescriptions referring to the firstborn. Additionally, nothing would exclude a preference for "firstborn" motivated by the particular tenderness and predilection with which a mother's heart welcomes the coming of her first child into this world.

It has been proved, then, with all certainty, that St. Luke could call Jesus "the firstborn of Mary," without damaging her virginity; yet more, that he could give Him that title even more appropriately than that of "only-begotten," for the reasons pointed out above, and do so, even knowing that, by the vow of virginity, which he himself had noted (Lk 1:34), not only the fact, but even the possibility of Mary giving birth to other children afterward had been excluded.¹⁷

Determination of the Relationship of Jesus to His Brothers

The heterodox solution having been rejected on historical grounds, and the perpetual virginity of Mary having been saved, it remains to determine the relationship of Jesus to His brothers. The apocryphal literature, with the Protoevangelium of James and the Gospel of Peter, the Gospel of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary and the History of Joseph the Carpenter, as also Origen, St. Hilary, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Ambrose, St. Epiphanius, Sts. Cyril and Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius, and up to St. John Chrysostom and St. Augustine initially - afterwards they retracted their opinion - and in latter times the Anglican exegete Lightfoot, believed we were dealing here with brothers-in-law of Jesus: sons, not of Mary, but of Joseph, through a marriage prior to his marriage with the Virgin of Nazareth.

However, the idea was brilliantly rebutted in his century by St. Jerome (In Mt., 12:47), and his influence has been decisive in the Church. In fact, this position maintains the perpetual virginity, not only of Mary, but also of her chaste spouse St. Joseph, denying any other marriage besides his virginal marriage with Mary. And truly, the contrary idea has no basis in the historical New Testament sources, or better it collides, as contradictory, with various of the observations made above concerning the accounts of the infancy. We know, furthermore, that the mother of two of those brothers, James and Joseph, was Mary, "His mother's sister," and who was found with her at the foot of the cross.¹⁸ The Fathers, for their part, let themselves be influenced on this point by the apocryphal literature, which offered them a solution which was, to all appearances, so simple, in order to dismiss the difficulties against the perpetual virginity of Mary.

All things considered, the only historically justifiable solution is the one sanctioned by tradition, which makes these brothers to be cousins of the Lord, with St. Jerome. Hegesippus, a native of Palestine and born in the first quarter of the second century, confirms it, as we have said, in a decisive manner with respect to Simeon in his Memoirs, transmitted by Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History, III, 11. But when one attempts to further specify that relationship, and that of the other brothers and sisters of the Lord, the obscurity is great. Of course, concerning His sisters, we do not know a word apart from the indication of Mk 6:3: "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and the brother of James and Joses [Joseph] and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?", and the corresponding verse Mt 13:55. As far as the brothers go, two of them, James and Joseph, are explicitly mentioned as sons of one of the holy women present on Calvary (Mt 27:56): "Among them were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee."¹⁹ This same Mary is called in Mk 16:1 and in Lk 24:10, "Mary of James," that is to say, Mary the mother of James. And she is without doubt the same woman who is called by Jn 19:25, "Mary of Clopas," that is to say, Mary the wife of Clopas.

To these facts, which are the most secure, one may add others, which Eusebius takes from Hegesippus, namely, that James, the brother of the Lord, enjoyed the privileges of the priesthood and was, naturally, of the priestly race, whereas Simon and Judas belonged to the family of David;²⁰ and Simon, son of Clopas, uncle of the Lord, was a cousin of the Lord, and as such was given preferrence for filling the see of Jerusalem after the martyrdom of James.²¹

Basing himself almost exclusively on the data of the New Testament, Fr. Cornely concluded: 1) that the so-called brothers of the Lord, James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas, were sons of Mary, a sister of the mother of Jesus, and of Clopas, who in turn was a brother of St. Joseph; 2) that Mary, the mother of these four brothers of the Lord, is called a sister of the mother of Jesus, either because in fact she was, or because her husband Clopas = Alpheus was a blood brother of St. Joseph, as Hegesippus attests; 3) that Clopas and Alpheus are nothing more than different transcriptions of the same Hebrew name Halphai, pronounced according to the hard form of the Galileans in the first case, and according to the softer form of the Jerusalemites in the second. The modern re-editor of the Compendium of the Introduction to Sacred Scripture, by Fr. Cornely, has made some corrections on this point to previous editions.²²

Perhaps it has been Fr. Prat who has best harmonized all the historical data, that of the New Testament as well as that which Hegesippus in turn offers for this problem. "Having had by his first wife two sons, called Simon and Judas, Clopas, a brother of St. Joseph, entered a second marriage with Mary, the mother in turn by a previous marriage of two other sons, James the Less and Joseph... One must also suppose, to do justice to tradition, that the first husband of this second wife Mary belonged to the tribe of Levi and the family of Aaron, and that for this reason his two sons, James and Joseph, belonged to the priestly race. There are even good reasons for believing that this first husband was named Alpheus." The following diagram illustrates these relationships, as Fr. Prat conceives them:

Alpheus | Mary        Clopas | X
|                      |        |               |
James     Joseph      Simon   Judas

The respective spouses having died, Mary and Clopas had entered into a second marriage. "Thus one understands," Fr. Prat concludes,

1) why James and Joseph, on the one hand, and Simon and Jude, on the other, always go together; 2) why the Synoptics call Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and never the mother of Simon and Jude; 3) why St. John says that Mary [the wife] of Clopas is a sister of the Most Holy Virgin, on account of her being married to a brother of St. Joseph, spouse of the Mother of God; 4) why Hegesippus makes Simon and Judas to be of the family of David, and on the other hand, makes James to be of the priestly race instead; 5) why, according to the same historian, Simon, and not James, is a son of Clopas; and 6) why Simon, like James, is a cousin of the Lord, without being his blood brother.²³

But these are constructions with which one may freely disagree. What must not be denied, if we are to adhere to the historical sources, is the central fact of the perpetual virginity of Mary, justly elevated by the Catholic Church to the status of dogma. One reflection before finishing. What elevated moral value must this flower of virginity have, which, even after having perfumed the whole earth with its heavenly aroma, is still not understood by some spirits, and has even had historically a mysterious power to unleash their rage? The Lord announced this beforehand, saying that not everyone could understand it, but only those to whom it was given by the Father (Mt 19:11). St. Paul said well (1 Cor 2:14), "The carnal man does not understand the works of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him; nor can he understand them, for they are spiritually discerned." Within divine revelation itself there has had to be a certain process of gradual evolution, since the ancient world was not prepared to receive these Gospel lights. "The old law had a different ideal of blessedness," St. Jerome observes,

for therein it is said: "Blessed is he who has seed in Zion and a family in Jerusalem:" and "Cursed is the barren who bears not:" and "Your children shall be like olive-plants round about your table." ...Elijah lived a virgin life, so also did Elisha and many of the sons of the prophets. To Jeremiah the command came: "You shall not take you a wife" (Jer 16:2)... In those days, as I have said, the virtue of continence was found only in men: Eve still continued to travail with children. But now that a virgin has conceived (Isa 7:14) in the womb and has borne to us a child of which the prophet says that "Government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called the mighty God, the everlasting Father" (Isa 9:6), now the chain of the curse is broken. Death came through Eve, but life has come through Mary. And thus the gift of virginity has been bestowed most richly upon women, seeing that it has had its beginning from a woman. As soon as the Son of God set foot upon the earth, He formed for Himself a new household there; that, as He was adored by angels in heaven, angels might serve Him also on earth.²⁴

This new earthly court which surrounds the throne of God made its entrance in this world with the perpetual virginity of Mary.

Victoriano Larrañaga

[1] La Religión al alcance de todos, p. 94. We cite from the edition, undated, by the way, from the Biblioteca Contemporánea of Barcelona. Latterly it has been reedited and profusely disseminated among the working masses and the village people, above all during these last four years. The most recent edition, from the publishing house Maucci, of Barcelona, is a reproduction of the thirty-fifth, and bears a prologue from José Nakens, who recalls his first edition from 1883.

[2] One may consult, on this theme, within the Catholic camp: Alfred Durand, L'Enfance de Jésus-Christ d'après les Évangiles canoniques, suivie d'un étude sur les frères du Seigneur, Paris (1908), 219-276; Ferdinand Prat, La Parenté de Jésus, Recherches de Science Religieuse (1927), 135-138; Marie-Joseph Lagrange, Saint Marc, Paris (1929), 72-89; Jean Baptiste Frey, Jésus le premier né de Marie, Biblica (1930), 385-390; Jules Lebreton, La Parenté du Christ, La Vie et l'Enseignement de Jésus Christ, I, Paris (1931), 64-67. In the heterodox camp: Lightfoot, Commentary to the Epistle to the Galatians (1869), 247-281; Theodor Zahn, Brüder und Vettern Jesu, Forschungen zur Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons, VI, 2, pp. 339-342; Louis Coulange, La Vierge Marie, Paris (1925); Machen, The Virgin Birth of Christ, New York (1930).

[3] "Cela suppose qu'il fut longtemps connu comme fils unique de veuve. De pareilles appellations, en effet, ne s'établissent que quand le père n'est plus et que la veuve n'a pas d'autre fils." Renan, Les Évangiles, Paris (1877), 542.

[4] See this summary of the historical proofs of the perpetual virginity of Mary in Lebreton, La Vie et l'Enseignement de Jésus Christ, I, Paris (1931), 65.

[5] Lebreton, op. cit., p. 65.

[6] St. Jerome, De perpetua Virginitate Beatae Mariae liber adversus Helvidium, 18, 19. There is no study comparable to this holy Doctor's in the patristic age, and even modern science has scarcely done anything besides underline the definitive affirmations of St. Jerome in this matter. The tract occupies columns 185-206 of volume XXIII of Migne's Patrologia Latina.

[7] Alfred Durand, L'Évangile de l'Enfance, p. 204.

[8] St. Augustine, In Iohannem tractatus decimus, 2.

[9] See these data which Fr. José M. Huarte, S.J., contributes in his Nuevo Manual de la lengua y literatura nacional china: Hiông = brother, cousin, friend, you (formal). Pao hiông = brother of the womb, to specify a blood brother. Ti = brother (younger), cousin, I, your servant (when directing oneself to equals or superiors). From whence also the compound: Ti hiông = brothers, cousins. Or vice-versa: Hiông ti = brothers, cousins. A similar phenomenon occurs with respect to the terms "cousin, nephew," which are used as terms of courtesy and benevolence in some indigenous American languages, as Fr. Constantino Bayle notes in El dorado Fantasma, Madrid (1930), 380. The inhabitants of the plains of Orinoco call their guests "cousins," according to Fr. Juan Rivero, Historia de las Misiones de los Llanos de Casanare y los ríos Orinoco y Meta, Bogotá (1883), 419. And the Actiaguas, for their part, in their welcome discourse, repeat the phrase, Yaquetá, nude, yaquetá = "'Tis true, nephews, 'tis true," as one can see in Fr. José Gumilla, El Orinoco ilustrado y defendido. Historia natural, civil, y geográfica de este gran río, Madrid (1744), part I, ch. 23, cited by Fr. Bayle, op. cit., p. 380. This same author reproduces a curious dialogue between Alonso Soleto and an Indian chief of the Chiquitos, on the occasion of the discovery of El Dorado: "Years ago, when he and his brother were in the town of Pocona, and conversing with the chief, they frequently put their lips to a jug of wine, with which the Indian grew tender. He asked, 'Nephew, describe your homeland for us.' 'I,' said Soleto, 'walked round where the son is born, and I marked the Chiquitos to the North...' The old man got excited; at a wink from Alonso, his brother returned to fill the jug; and the chief let loose his tongue at the same time as he was licking the juice of the grape from his lips. 'Nephews, you have described to me your land and the Chiquitos towards the North; observe that though your fathers may be travellers, when the enter Peru, they have always entered and disappeared; you, nephews, are near them now.'" Bayle, op. cit., pp. 380-381.

[10] St. Jerome, De perpetua Virginitate Beatae Mariae liber adversus Helvidium, PL, XXIII, 199-200.

[11] Louis Coulange, La Vierge Marie, Paris (1925), 43-44.

[12] Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, IV, 22, PG, XX, 380.

[13] See likewise Mt 1:25.

[14] Godet, Saint Luc, I, Neuchâtel (1888), 172.

[15] "Cum hic mos sit divinarum Scripturarum, ut primogenitum non eum vocent, quem fratres sequuntur, sed eum, qui primus natus sit," PL, XXVI, 28.

[16] Plummer, St. Luke, Edinburgh (1906), 53.

[17] A few other objections of lesser importance have been urged against the perpetual virginity of Mary, such as that taken from the words of Mt 1:25: "He [Joseph] knew her not until she had borne her firstborn son." Therefore, it has been concluded, afterwards he knew her, deflowering her virginity. To that St. Jerome already responded, saying that what the evangelist wanted to underline there is Mary's virginal conception outside of the laws active in other conceptions; and to illustrate this sense of "until she had borne," St. Jerome cites two analogous expressions, one from the Old and one from the New Testament: Isa 46:4: "Even to old age I am he." "Will He cease to be God when they have grown old?", asks St. Jerome. Similarly in 1 Cor 15:26: "for he must reign, till he has put all enemies under his feet." "Is the Lord to reign only until His enemies begin to be under His feet, and once they are under His feet will He cease to reign? Of course His reign will then commence in its fullness when His enemies begin to be under His feet." De perpetua Virginitate Beatae Mariae liber adversus Helvidium, PL, XXIII, 189.

The syro-sinaitic reading of Mt 1:16 was also turned to in order to impugn the virginity of Mary: "And Joseph, with whom the Virgin Mary had been espoused, begat Jesus, who is called Christ." Clemente Ricci recently defended it as the only critically authentic reading in "La critica religiosa como elemento de cultura" and "La lección siro-sinaítica de Mt 1:16 y el texto de von Soden," Boletín de Investigaciones del Instituto de Investigaciones Históricas, XV, Buenos Aires (1932), 475-530; XVII (1934), 24-47, respectively. But this stunt of Ricci passed out of fashion, and the siro-sinaitic reading of Mt 1:16 is deprived of authority by textual criticism, as one may see in Bover, "Cuál es la lección auténtica de Mt 1:16?" Estudios Eclesiásticos (1934), 338-354.

[18] Mt 27:56; Mk 15:40; Jn 19:25.

[19] Likewise in the parallel passage, Mk 15:40: "Among them were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome."

[20] Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, II, 23, 6.

[21] Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, IV, 22.

[22] Cornely-Merk, Introductionis in S. Scripturae Libros Compendium, Paris (1927), 925.

[23] Ferdinand Prat, La Parenté de Jésus, Recherches de Science Religieuse (1927), 136-138.

[24] St. Jerome, Epistula XXII ad Eustochium, Paulae filiam, PL, XXII, 407-408. Upon finishing this article, there arrived in our hands the recent publication of Samuel Villa, La religión al alcance del pueblo. Réplica a la obra de Ibarreta, La religión al alcance de todos. [Religion within the reach of the people. A Response to Ibarreta's work, Religion within the reach of all] Madrid, Editorial Juan de Valdés, 1935. It is an enlargement, as the author tells us, of the numerous notes he took in pencil, "in small handwriting, crowded in the meager space provided by the foot and margins of the page, to give expression to the abundance of thoughts which reading Ibarreta aroused in his spirit," rounded out by other writings of his, published in various periodicals. It is a success, within its genre, in terms of its orientation and of its style; many responses are well crafted; others, on the other hand, require greater consideration and study; in more than one case one would desire clearer ideas, and of course, greater theological rectitude and precision, for example, in treating of the mystery of the Trinity or of the fire of hell; and once, speaking of the Catholic Church, the authors shows himself very superficial and unjust, making his own Ibarreta's affirmations against the Vatican, the Papacy, and infallibility very poorly understood, as happens, unfortunately, in the Protestant world. And in fact Samuel Villa is not Catholic, as he himself expressly declares towards the middle of his book, p. 105; that declaration would have been better placed at the beginning, in order not to call deceptively to Catholic readers. He does not say to which Christian communion he belongs, but it easily follows from the favorable treatment which he gives to Protestantism that the author belongs to that church. Samuel Villa says nothing about Ibarreta's attack against the perpetual virginity of Mary.