The Perpetual Virginity of Mary (Part 4 of 4: Cousins)

      St. Jerome is famous as the scholar who produced the Vulgate, the standard Latin translation of the Bible. As such, his other writings became hugely influential. Jerome was a monk particularly obsessed with ascetism: the denial of the pleasures of the flesh. And he had a special animus against marriage, even going so far as to say that St. Peter had wiped out the filth of marriage with the blood of martyrdom. The warmth of married love was outside of his world view; he seems to have no concept of marriage except as a channel for sexual desires. Virginity was the highest virtue, and marriage, according to him, was of value only in producing more virgins. So you may guarantee that he did not take it lightly when another writer contradicted this world view.

       About 380 a certain Helvidius wrote a tract in which he rejected the proposition that celibacy is a superior and holier calling than that of marriage and family, and referenced the Holy Family as an example. He even cited Tertullian and Victorinus. This caused quite a stir, with the result that in 383 Jerome wrote a reply entitled, On the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin, and Against Helvidius, in which he sought to defend the perpetual virginity, not only of Mary, but also of Joseph, and because of Jerome's authority his view eventually became the accepted norm throughout the Latin church. Nevertheless, it is essentially artificial. His view could be summarised as follows:

1. The brothers and sisters of Christ were not the offspring of Mary and Joseph, but of the Virgin Mary's sister, coincidentally also called Mary, and her husband, Clopas.
2. It therefore follows that Jesus' "brothers" were really His cousins.
3. Although James was obviously a very common name at the time, James the brother of the Lord, James "the Less" and the apostle James the son of Alphaeus were all the same person.

      But before we consider these propositions, some issues of translation are in order. The gospels were not composed solely from oral tradition. Initially, collections of teachings and narratives were written down for catechistic purposes. ("Many have undertaken to compile a narrative..." Luke 1:1) Now, Hebrew and Aramaic possess sounds not present in Greek or, indeed, in most other European languages. However, Greek nouns possess endings indicative of gender, number, and case. Thus, there is always some difficulty rendering Hebrew names into Greek, and as often as not a Greek ending has to be attached. Most readers will be surprised to learn, for example, that Judas is simply the Old Testament name, Judah with a Greek ending, and that Lazarus is found in the Old Testament as Eleazar.

       You should not be surprised, therefore, that the same Hebrew name occasionally gets spelled in two different ways in the New Testament. Thus, Symeon is the same as Simon, and there are two different spellings of Jerusalem. Now Mary represents the Hebrew name, Maryām with the result that the mother of Jesus and the sister of Martha and Lazarus are normally written in Greek as Mariám. However, the Maries present at the cross and the tomb are called María. This is not a different name, but a different spelling, indicating that the lists were compiled at an early stage before the "standard" rendition had developed.

       Likewise, Joseph acquires a Greek ending as Joses in Mark 6:3 and Mark 15:40, 47. The interesting thing is that the parallel passages of Matt.13:55 and 27:56 have Joseph in the earliest manuscripts. However, it reverts to Joses in the later manuscripts on which the King James Version is based. The same is true for Acts 4:36.

        What we do have is a serious mistranslation. Jerome translates Mark 15:40 as the Latin equivalent of “James the Less”, and almost all later translators have followed him, although some render it as “James the Younger”. Nevertheless, it is wrong, and it says a lot that a scholar of such magnitude should be so blind. The word is not the comparative, mikróteros, “less” or “smaller”, but mikrós, “little”. So the person involved should really be translated as “James the Little” or, as we would say, “Little James”, which probably referred to his stature. Does it matter? Yes, because Jerome made an issue of it, insisting that the comparative indicated that two, and no more than two, people of the same name were involved, and that James the Less was so designated in order to distinguish him from James the brother of John, although there is no evidence that the latter was ever called “James the Great(er)”.

          Now, getting back to Jerome's thesis - 

         1. This is ridiculous. Whoever heard of parents calling two living daughters by the same name? It would negate the whole purpose of naming, which is to tell individuals apart. Jerome based this on the strange construction in John 19:25: “And there stood by the cross of Jesus, his mother and his mother’s sister, Mary of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene”. What John apparently intended was that “his mother and his mother’s sister” were to be considered a single unit, Mary of Clopas a third, and Mary Magdalene a fourth. A construct such as this is not unknown in Greek, for Matt. 10:2-4 also arranges the apostles in pairs. It is also an early interpretation. The Peshitta, the standard translation of the Bible into Aramaic in the second century, inserts “and” between “his mother’s sister” and “Mary of Clopas”. This being said, unless we expand the number of Maries at the cross, Mary of Clopas would also be the mother of James and Joseph.

         But even if the Virgin Mary's parents adopted this peculiar system of naming their daughters, it does not follow that Mary of Clopas was the mother of Jesus' brothers. Merely saying so doesn't make it so. This has been asserted so often, we forget how bizarre it is. Hitherto, everyone assumed that Jesus' siblings were at least the offspring of Joseph. Now a completely different father has been introduced with no good reason except to satisfy a pre-determined doctrine.

         2.  I've already explained in Part 1 that, although "brother" can be used in a symbolic sense, it is not used non-symbolically for more distant relatives. Now, before we go any further, we need to address a contention you will discover on many websites: that Aramaic does not have a separate word for “cousin”. This is false. Aramaic, like most other languages, has to distinguish between such relationships. While “brother” is āḥâ, there are several words for “cousin”, notably āḥān. In any case, the New Testament is not written in Aramaic, but Greek, and this language definitely does possess the appropriate word:  anepsiós, which can be found in Col. 4:10. Moreover, there is a perfectly suitable Greek word, used frequently in the New Testament: syngenēs, or “kinsman”. Why wasn’t it used? One might argue - not very convincingly - that the references in the first three gospels are all based on Aramaic originals, but that hardly applies to St. John and St. Paul. Didn’t they know the correct relationships within the Holy Family?

           Hegesippus also made the distinction, and so did the early fourth century historian, Eusebius, who quoted him. James, the head of the church in Jerusalem, was called the brother (adelphós) of Jesus, as was a certain Judas, whose grandchildren were interrogated by the Emperor Domitian. After James’ martyrdom, his place was taken by Simeon, the son of Cleophas. In the words of Eusebius: “They say he was the cousin (anepsiós)  of our Saviour, for Hegesippus asserts that Cleophas was the brother of Joseph.”

            3. Nothing in the text identifies Little James ("James the Less") with James the brother of the Lord. It is even more difficult to identify him with James the son of Alphaeus, who was one of the twelve. Nevertheless, such was the authority of Jerome you will constantly see James the son of Alphaeus referred to as "James the Less".

           Jerome admitted that he didn’t know whether Clopas was Mary’s father or her husband. He ought to have. In a patriarchal, patrilinear society a married woman with children is identified by her husband, not the father who gave her away to her husband years before. And Alphaeus and Clopas are two different names. The former is the Greek attempt to write the Hebrew and Aramaic Ḥalphai. The structure and pronunciation of Semitic words make it impossible to convert it to Clopas. The latter is a pure Greek name, a version of Cleopas, itself an abbreviation of Cleopatros. I suppose it is possible that the father of the apostle possessed both a Hebrew and a Greek name, but it is not supported by any evidence, and you just can’t equate two different names in order to advance a particular viewpoint. Apart from that, it is consistently reported that the brothers of Jesus did not believe in him before his resurrection. But James the son of Alphaeus was one of the twelve. And why would he, in particular, be designated “the brother of the Lord”?

          And the irony is: if it could be shown that Little James was somehow the same as James the brother of the Lord, it wouldn't be necessary to bring James the son of Alphaeus into the picture at all. However, it would have left him a rather minor character, and Jerome apparently felt he needed someone fairly important, like an apostle, and because he was convinced there were two James of this stature, one of whom was "the less". So who, then, were Little James and his brother, Joseph (Joses)? My guess is that they were people well known to the Christian community in Jerusalem at the time, but forgotten today - just as Mark 15:21 assumes that the readers know who Alexander and Rufus were, even if we don’t.
          Conclusions: This is a good case of putting two and two together to get 22. Full of improbabilities, it is a wholly artificial scheme based on the unproved assumption that both Mary and Joseph were virgins throughout life.

         Next time you hear someone expounding the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary, you should ask: "Why is this important to you?"  I've already given the reasons at the start of Part 1, but they ought to be required to face the issue.

         In response, we might ask: why is it necessary to debunk it? There are two reasons. The first is that we should not require anyone to believe something which is not taught in the Bible. The second is that it belongs to a world view which devalues sex and marriage as gifts from God. It converts marriage into some sort of necessary evil required for the continuation of the species, and as a channel for urges which are somehow not quite right.

          Helvidius was correct: the calling of a virtuous wife and mother is just as holy as that of a lifelong celibate - even more so - and the Holy Family serves as an exemplar.

Back to Parts 1, 2, and 3.

Addendum.  On YouTube Trent Horn produced a clip entitled, "Top Objections to Mary's Perpetual Virginity [REBUTTED]". He provides the same old arguments which I've already answered. However, I wish to refer to a comment by a certain RJPatten, which says it all:

1. Preliminary: The Burden of Proof Is on the Dogma, Not on Scripture A central Reformed principle is this: dogma must rest on clear Scripture, not on theological inference or post-biblical tradition. —The Roman Catholic dogma of Perpetual Virginity requires that: —Mary never had sexual relations with Joseph. —Jesus’ “brothers” are not her biological children. —The marriage of Joseph and Mary was non-consummated for life. No text of Scripture teaches this. Therefore, even if some Protestant arguments were weak, that would not provide positive biblical evidence for the dogma. Horn critiques certain Protestant linguistic arguments, but the Catholic position still has no explicit biblical support, while the straightforward reading of the New Testament repeatedly contradicts it. 2. On the 'UNTIL' Argument (Matthew 1:25) “Joseph knew her not until she had given birth to a son…” 2.1. The Reformed Position We agree “until” (ἕως or ἕως οὗ) does not always imply a change afterwards (as Samuel 6:23 shows). However: 1. Matthew 1:25 is in a narrative, not a poetic or idiomatic setting. Poetry frequently uses “until” idiomatically; narratives do so far less. 2. Matthew’s point is to affirm Jesus’ virginal conception, not Mary’s lifelong virginity. The verse’s natural reading is: Before Jesus’ birth → no sexual relations. After Jesus’ birth → Matthew does not require or imply perpetual abstinence. 3. Early readers with no prior doctrine did not infer lifelong virginity. The default understanding of second-temple Jewish marriages is that they were consummated. 4. Catholic apologists argue from possibility, not probability. Horn shows “until” could be read in a non-reversal sense. But the Reformed reading rests on normal narrative usage, not necessity. The key difference is this: Catholic position requires “until” NOT to imply change. The Reformed position does not require “until” TO imply change; it only observes that the ordinary narrative sense is consistent with consummation. Thus, Horn’s linguistic defense does not create biblical evidence for the dogma.  3. On the Meaning of “Brothers” (Adelphoi) Horn’s central move is to argue that “brothers” can refer to:

Cousins Children of Joseph from a previous marriage Adoptive siblings General kinship terms All of these are possibilities. The Reformed position simply says: 3.1. Scripture uses adelphoi in its normal sense unless context demands otherwise. The New Testament uses “brothers” for: biological siblings, fellow believers, kin. But when used in family lists with named mothers, the default is literal siblings. 3.2. The New Testament never identifies these brothers as cousins. The cousin claim requires: Appealing to extra-biblical tradition, Re-categorizing ordinary family language, Ignoring passages that clearly treat them as members of the household. 3.3. The “children from Joseph’s prior marriage” hypothesis is: Not biblical, Unknown to the earliest strata of Christian witnesses, A later apologetic development to defend Mary’s perpetual virginity. 3.4. The decisive text: Matthew 1:24–25 + Luke 2:7 (πρωτότοκος = “firstborn”) “Firstborn” does not require later children, but it is a strange word choice for a perpetual-vow marriage. The force of the language is this: Mary’s virginity before Jesus’ birth is emphasized; nothing is said about afterwards, and the ordinary family terminology strongly suggests more children.  4. Logical Analysis of Horn’s Linguistic Case Horn’s argument, even if partially successful, only shows: Scripture does not necessitate that Mary later had children. But dogma requires more than “not contradicted by Scripture.” It requires positive biblical grounding, which the doctrine does not possess. 4.1. Eliminating alternative readings does NOT prove perpetual virginity. Horn tries to show: “Until” does not require change → therefore perpetual virginity remains possible. “Brothers” can refer to non-literal siblings → therefore perpetual virginity remains possible. But possibility is not proof. By analogy: Genesis 1 could possibly be metaphorical. But that does not prove it is metaphorical. Catholic apologists repeatedly confuse defeating a Protestant argument with adding evidence to their own.  5. The Appeal to Reformers (Luther, Calvin, etc.) Horn frequently cites Protestant Reformers' acceptance of perpetual virginity. However: 5.1. Their view was inherited cultural tradition, not exegetical result. All Reformers inherited late-medieval Marian assumptions. 5.2. The Reformers explicitly rejected the dogma as binding because Scripture is silent. Calvin’s actual point is: We cannot draw conclusions from Matthew 1:25 about what happened later. This is not agreement with Catholic dogma; it is limiting claims to Scripture. 5.3. Reformed theology today is not obligated to hold every incidental Reformational opinion. The doctrine is not confessional. It is not creedal. It is not grounded in Scripture. Thus, the Reformers’ personal views are not doctrinally binding.  6. The Catholic Position Requires Extra-Biblical Tradition At the end of the day, the Catholic dogma depends on: Protoevangelium of James (a 2nd-century apocryphal text), Later ascetic theology that idolized virginity, Developing Marian devotion, Ecclesial authority, not Scripture. No apostle teaches it. No New Testament author teaches it. No Old Testament pattern requires it. Horn’s entire case is a linguistic defense of possibility, not a demonstration of truth.  7. Scripture Itself Suggests a Normal Marriage and Real Siblings The Reformed position rests on: 7.1. The normal reading of narrative Jewish family language (“brothers,” named family groups, household structure) 7.2. The absence of any textual indication of perpetual virginity 7.3. The total silence of Scripture on: a vow of celibacy an ascetic marriage Joseph’s prior marriage cousins being called “brothers” in this context 7.4. Consistency with Jesus’ humanity Jesus entered a normal Jewish family. There is no theological necessity for Mary’s perpetual virginity.  8. CONCLUSION: Scripture Does Not Teach Perpetual Virginity Horn’s critique may correct weaker Protestant arguments—but it does not establish his doctrine. Biblically: “Until” does not prove perpetual virginity. “Brothers” overwhelmingly suggests biological siblings. No apostolic teaching supports Mary’s lifelong sexual abstinence. No New Testament author defends or implies the dogma. Logically: Clearing away a Protestant argument ≠ positive evidence for a Catholic dogma. Dogma cannot rest on linguistic possibility → it must rest on biblical certainty. Theologically: Perpetual virginity has no grounding in Christology or soteriology. It is a later ecclesial tradition and should be treated as such.