There is a presupposition among Protestant believers that the Catholic Church has a habit of building up traditions over time. This habit wants too keep adding dogmas that must be accepted on faith, because of the Church's authority. Indeed, the split in 1517 was a direct result of a spurious dogma that the Church later revised and repudiated in practice. One could cite more such accretions, mostly harmless, but doing so would prove very little.
In "modern" times, the question has been raised as to whether Mother Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus. It has been said that the Bible notes several "brothers and sisters" of our Lord in the Gospels. Further, there is a distinct lack of biographical background in the story of Joseph, and virtually no discussion of Jesus' home life as a child or as a young adult.
It is almost a truism to say that the human mind abhors a vacuum, so it is no surprise to hear stories or create implications based on our natural human presuppositions. There were pseudo-gospels written centuries later to fill the gaps, but none spoke up to despoil Mary's perfect reputation.
This doubt is actually directed against Joseph, whether he could have kept Mary in her state of innocence for decades in his home. We don't even know for sure that he lived for long after Jesus' episode in the Temple, though we might presume that he witnessed his Bar Mitzvah. There is no discussion of Joseph's relations with Mary, marital or otherwise. It's not essential to the Gospel. Personally, I find it a bit rude to lay such a charge against Joseph's equally spotless reputation, and I want to defend him.
The argument that "incriminating" evidence has to be picked apart one piece at a time really only works if it requires multiple interventions to clear someone's name. If there is a single explanation that covers all of the objections, then it should be held in equal regard to the accusation of "natural presupposition."
The Protestant "sola scriptura" position that says the Bible allows for Jesus to have biological siblings may be credible on the surface, but it lacks respect for tradition. I generally want to agree with Sola Scriptura for questions arising after the Great Schism in 1054, but for earlier issues, I want to defer to the Ecumenical Councils, and especially the teachings of the Apostles and their direct students.
Now, let's get into the argument on this topic.
1. We are talking about exceptionally pious people in this case. It fits perfectly for Joseph to have lots of kids before he married Mary, and that he did so because he needed help to raise them. Choosing a young woman in her middle teens, who spent more time in prayer than in chasing boys, would make good sense.
2. It also fits that the culture of the Jews in the first century regarded all of the cousins as if they were siblings because they gathered for the festivals several times every year. They might even share the kids around with aunts and uncles, staying in each other's homes, for bonding or convenience.
3. It is equally likely that Joseph died once Jesus reached teen-age years, and all of his kids were regarded as belonging to Mary because she was the surviving parent. It might be considered bad taste to say they were Joseph's kids instead of Mary's.
But all of this is a normal case study for Judaean culture in the 1st century. Nothing is unexpected or convoluted to happen to clear Joseph's name. Older siblings and cousins are nothing unusual.
4. In fact, if you were Joseph, and Mary had clearly been wed to God, and had borne God's Son, despite the legality of having visibly married her, do you think you would dare to violate the sanctity of the virgin who birthed God's Son? She is clearly dedicated, set apart for God, to be regarded as holy ground. I doubt that this pious husband, who sees visions, would cross that line. God doesn't divorce, so she is still His.
5. On the cross, Jesus tells John to take Mary as his mother, which he need not have done if his "brothers and sisters" were around to care for her. He clearly thought that She would be better off if kept by his favorite disciple, as his relatives were not yet believers. None of his "presupposed siblings" felt enough filial piety to accompany Mary and witness his execution, but John did.
In conclusion, I have to agree with the ancient tradition that Mary remained a perpetual virgin. Given the normal social relations among the Jews in the Galilee and Judaea, with many festivals on the calendar observed as family gatherings, the collected cadre of siblings and cousins would blend into one extended family.
The story was likely to be real, in my opinion. What remotely religious person, much less one chosen by God for his piety and observance of the Law, would have dared to make free use of the woman he was given to protect and care for her son? The claim for Mary's perpetual virginity isn't just a pious fiction. Rather it seems quite likely to be true, and it could have originated from among the apostles, even Mary herself, if anyone had asked. And as such, it's as authoritative as anything the Church has taught.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment