Jesus’ “Brothers” & Mary’s Virginity

8 Meier, A Marginal Jew, 329. The label “the cousin approach” is misleading. First of all, the argument is not that “brother” means “cousin.” The argument is that, in the special case of Jesus, the term “brother” does not necessarily denote “blood brother.” Secondly, no one in the early Church held the Epiphanian view and argued against a Jeromian interpretation. The question was, did Mary and Joseph have children after Jesus’ birth? Historically, it is more accurate to differentiate only between those who held Mary’s virginity post partum and those who held the Helvidian position. To say the Epiphanian view enjoyed support is equivalent to the assertion that the doctrine of Mary’s virginity post partum enjoyed support. Theological reflection on the virginity of Joseph was a development that simply had not occurred. During the first three centuries of the Church Christ’s origins were widely challenged, his true humanity as well as his true divinity. From this point of view, it should not be surprising that the focus would be on Jesus’ virginal conception and his true birth ex Maria, and less on her virginity post partum and in partu, let alone the virginity of Joseph (a teaching not de fide, however true). Even in the fourth century, around 360, Eunomius of Cyzicus-bishop and leader of those who advocated the anomoios (the Son is “unlike” the Father) and denied the homoousios-attacked Mary’s perpetual virginity in a sermon delivered on the feast of the Epiphany (d. J. Bidez, Philostorgus Kirchengeschichte 6.2 [GCS 21:71]). In another sermon ascribed to Basil of Caesarea, who supposedly answered that attack, it is proclaimed that “the lovers of Christ [philochristot] cannot bear to hear that the Theotokos ever ceased to be a virgin” (see ln Christi generationem [PG 41: 1468]). From other indications in the text, however, it is clear that Christ’s divinity was the principal issue at stake. (P. 84)

V

In conclusion, the Epiphanian explanation for the “brothers and sisters of Jesus” provided a convenient, not fully reflective, answer to scriptural objections that could be brought against Mary’s virginity post partum. It is in this sense that this opinion had early supporters.⁵⁰ The idea of the virginity of Joseph as spouse of the Mother of God had not been considered.⁵¹ But the Epiphanian view was never held and defended in opposition to a Jeromian interpretation. Moreover, the claim that the Helvidian position enjoyed antiquity and widespread support cannot be sustained even under superficial scrutiny. Before the fourth century, exactly who was a supporter of the Helvidian position? There is not one single explicit witness in favor of it. Helvidius himself could produce only two potential witnesses: Tertullian and Victorinus of Pettau. I have shown that Tertullian need not be taken as a dear witness against Mary’s virginity. As far as Victorinus is concerned, there is no reason to believe that his testimony is as Helvidius implied.⁵² In addition, although his testimony could be considered, strictly speaking, pre-Nicene, Victorinus is still a fourth-century witness. And if Mary’s virginity post partum has few explicit pre-Nicene advocates, one could further point out that doctrines held by the Church without attack take up much less space in the literature (in the early Church possibly none at all) than what is attacked and must be defended.⁵³ From a historical point of view, it is hard to see how Mary’s virginity post partum, if false, could have been asserted at all in the second century without an explicit denial. After all, the “brothers and sisters” of Jesus and their descendants are known to have occupied prominent places in the Christian community well into the second century. The Book of James is a product of that era. If belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity was a falsehood promoted only by gnostic groups, then it seems unlikely that some of the early Christian apologists who wrote against the gnostics would not have denied such mendacity explicitly.

⁵⁰ It would be inaccurate to say, however, that people like Origen held the Epiphanian view. Certainly, Origen was well aware of the so-called Gospel of Peter and the Book of James. But Origen never authenticates these sources and simply recognizes in them a possibility. His belief in Mary’s virginity cannot be said to depend on these apocryphal writings. Cf. Origen, Commentaria in Evangelium secundum Matthaeum, 10.17 (SC 162:216)…

⁵² I have noted that whatever text of Victorinus was available to Helvidius is not extant. Jerome asserts that Victorinus does not call “the brother of the Lord” “sons of Mary,” implying that Victorinus was just following the gospel use of the terms and nothing else. Cf. Jerome, De perpetua virginitate b. Mariae adversus Helvidium, 17 (PL 23:211B). The only extant text from Victorinus that deals with the Virgin Mary seems to be De fabrica mundi 9 (CSEL 49:8): “Ut Adam ilium per septimanan reformaverit atque universae suae creaturae subvenerit, nativitate Filii sui Iesu Christi Domini nostri factum est. Quis itaque lege Dei doctus, quis plenus Spiritu Sancto non respiciat corde ea die Gabriel angelum Mariae evangelizasse, qua die draco Evam seduxit, ea die Spiritum Sanctum Mariam Virginem inundasse qua lucem fecit?” The text is reminiscent of Irenaeus’s recapitulation analogies. With respect to possible additional witness against Mary’s virginity postpartum, I have shown that neither Hegesippus nor Irenaeus can be counted among them. On the contrary, Hegesippus could be counted as an indirect witness for it, and lrenaeus gives evidence of Mary’s virginity in partu. Therefore, those who wish to uphold the Helvidian position must do so, at best, with the highly ambiguous testimony of Tertullian. (Pp. 100-101)

⁵⁵ I have alluded to the fact that denials of Mary’s virginity often came from individuals with strong Arian credentials (e.g., Eunomius of Cyzicus). Helvidius himself was connected to the Arian Auxentius who preceded Ambrose as bishop of Milan (cf. J. Quasten, Patrology, vol. 4 [Westminster, Md.: Christian Classics, 1991), 239). This does not seem to be a coincidence. After the fourth century, Mary’s virginity was seriously questioned only with the beginning of denials of Christ’s divinity in liberal Protestantism. Meier acknowledges that “it was only with the rise of the Enlightenment that the idea that the brothers and sisters were biological children of Mary and Joseph gained acceptance among ‘mainline’ Protestants” (“The Brothers and Sisters of Jesus,” 6). What does this historical observation say about the post-Enlightenment presuppositions that dominate Meier’s method? What does it say to Protestants today who accept the Helvidian opinion? It should be more than “a startling fact” (ibid.) that the great figures of the Protestant Reformation rejected the Helvidian opinion. Martin Luther beautifully expresses the sensus fidelium when he declares that “after realizing she was the mother of the Son of God, [Mary] could not want to be the mother of the son of a man and remained in that gift” (“Nam postquam sensit se esse matrem filii Dei, non optavit fieri mater filii hominis, sed mansit in illo dono” [Anton Lauterbachs Tagebuch aus Jahre 1539 (WA48:579)]). (P. 102)

II

Let us now address the testimony of Tertullian, who is often considered to be a dear witness against Mary’s virginity post partum.²² With Tertullian, however, we have a similar problem as with the New Testament evidence. That is, we can try to decipher what he means to say whenever he deals with the New Testament texts that mention the “brothers” of Jesus or whenever he discusses a relevant topic such as virginity or marriage.²³ Tertullian, however, never asserts explicitly that Mary and Joseph had children of their own. This is somewhat remarkable if one considers that the existence of a group of men and women, born from the same womb as Jesus was born, would have provided Tertullian with an effective and elegant rhetorical weapon against his Docetist adversaries. It seems unlikely that an accomplished polemicist like Tertullian would have missed the opportunity to use that weapon in a very explicit manner.²⁴

Hunter observes that Tertullian nowhere attacks Mary’s post partum virginity explicitly. He adds, “indeed, he seems to show no awareness that such idea existed at all. “²⁵ He wants to make an argument from silence. But arguments from silence are notorious for begging the question. If Tertullian seems to show no awareness of Mary’s virginity post partum, it does not follow that the Helvidian opinion must have been widely held.  

By way of comparison, the divinity of the Holy Spirit (obviously a very foundational doctrine of the Christian faith) can barely count on one witness prior to 360.²⁶ Before then, only Origen had developed a significant pneumatology, even if it is not free from some ambiguities by post-Nicene standards. Despite the fact that he dealt at some length with the Trinity, Tertullian-a great contributor to the Trinitarian language of the Latin Church-did not write on the Holy Spirit per se in any systematic way. And apropos, Tertullian provides some “embarrassing patristic evidence”²⁷ when he calls the “word of God” (sermo Dei), which he equates with the Spiritus Dei, “a portion of the whole” (portio aliqua totius).²⁸ The main point is that explicit testimony on the Person, the divinity, and the consubstantiality of the Holy Spirit with the Father and the Son is remarkably sparse prior to the second half of the fourth century. It does not follow, however, that the tropikoi or the pneumatomachoi were the genuine bearers of a more ancient and widely held tradition in the Church.²⁹ Nor does it follow that the aforementioned teachings on the Holy Spirit-previously not part of the pre-Nicene literature-were post-Nicene “thought up” doctrines of Athanasius et al. The correct conclusion is that before the fourth century these teachings had not been seriously called into question and thus they had not taken up much space in the pre-Nicene literature. Even the symbol of Nicea limited itself to the plain assertion, “[we believe] in the Holy Spirit.” But with the increasing number of challenges to the divinity of the Holy Spirit up until the council of Constantinople in 381, pneumatological treatises became relatively abundant. Shortly before that time, in addition to Basil, Gregory of Nazianzus, Didymus the Blind, and Ambrose of Milan wrote important works on the Holy Spirit.³⁰ In summary, despite the lack of pre-Nicene evidence, it would be a mistake to say that belief and reflection on the divinity of the Holy Spirit had a “fragile basis” prior to the fourth century. As Henri Crouzel has observed, that would be the same mistake “that a historian of the 21st century would make if he attempted to write the history of a period in the 20th century relying solely and uncritically on newspapers that favoured the sensational at the expense of the ordinary facts of every day life. “³¹

The history of the doctrine of Mary’s virginity post partum is perfectly analogous. Until the fourth century, it had been a relatively unchallenged doctrine and thus the pre-Nicene literature is quite sparse. Among early Christian writers, only Origen can be said to have developed a significant “Mariology.” Other available testimony left many questions unanswered. But once the doctrine was seriously challenged, it was defended and widely upheld. In fact, although Jerome is the only author who wrote a separate tract on Mary’s virginity-the pamphlet against Helvidius–every Father of the Church in the fourth century who addressed the issue of the “brothers of Jesus” upheld Mary’s virginity post partum.³²

As I have noted previously, Tertullian is often considered to be a witness against Mary’s virginity post partum, even by some scholars who defend this teaching. But the fact is that Tertullian could be interpreted differently.³³ As an example, let us analyze the text of De monogamia 8 .1-3. First of all, he is arguing against the remarriage of widows. To achieve Christian holiness, he believes, there are two options to follow: monogamia or continentia. He proceeds by developing an analogy between Zechariah and his son John the Baptist as representatives of these two options: “monogamia et continentia, alia pudica in Zacharia sacerdote, alia integra in Ioanne antecursore, alia placans Deum, alia praedicans Christum, alia totum praedicans sacerdotem, alia plus praeferens quam propheten.” According to Tertullian, one should either be monogamous like Zechariah or remain unmarried like John the Baptist (and of course, in this case a Christian would be bound to practice continence). But the emphasis is on being married only once. Notice that the term used by Tertullian is continentia, not virginitas. In a sense, virginity has only an incidental character in this analogy. Tertullian adds that, due to Christ’s holiness, it was appropriate that he was born of a woman who was both a virgin and married only once (uirgine et uniuira). This is all that Tertullian is saying. Meier assumes that since married people usually are not perpetually continent, then sexual intercourse and childbearing must have followed in the case of Mary and Joseph. But there is no reason to assume this from the text itself. That Mary must have had children is obvious to Meier by the fact that Zechariah himself had a son. But this is an irrelevant observation since only Zechariah’s monogamous status is at issue in Tertullian’s argument. His particular emphasis is revealed further when he mentions Anna, the female prophet in the temple (cf. Luke 2:36), who was uidua et uniuira. For Tertullian, it is irrelevant whether she had children or not. He is only interested in pointing out that Anna was married, that she became a widow, and that she remained a widow. Therefore, unless one begs the question by assuming what must be shown, this text of the De monogamia-and similarly the other four aforementioned texts from Tertullian–cannot be used as proof of Tertullian’s denial of Mary’s virginity post partum. In fact, in the present example one could press the analogy in the other direction. It could imply that Mary belongs to both groups (continent and monogamous) permanently. After all, Tertullian compares Mary’s virginity directly to John the Baptist’s virginity (he does not compare Zechariah directly with Mary).

Meier writes: “It is sad to see so fine a scholar as Blinzler (Die Bruder, 139-41) strain to water down or make ambiguous what Tertullian clearly says.”³⁴ But a careful reading of the Adversus Marcionem 4.19 (in Meier’s opinion, the strongest evidence against Mary’s virginity post partum) rejects Meier’s insinuation that one compromises intellectual integrity by insisting that this long text says nothing conclusive against that teaching.³⁵

Even if we grant that Tertullian denied Mary’s virginity post partum, it would still not follow that the Helvidian opinion must have been widely held. Tertullian often rejected doctrines and customs held by orthodox Christians of his time. For instance, his purpose in writing the Apologeticum (perhaps his most important work, written well before he joined the radical Montanists) was to convince the Roman government officials of the usefulness of Christian citizens to the state.³⁶ But by 207, Tertullian seems to be obsessed with the idea of Christians participating together with pagans in civic affairs and succumbing to idolatry as a consequence of that relationship. This real or perceived danger led Tertullian to condemn customs that his contemporaries held as perfectly legitimate. He even condemned Christian involvement in professions such as school teacher and especially teacher of literature.³⁷ We also have, as witnessed by his De monogamia, Tertullian’s denial of the legitimacy of the remarriage of widows, contrary to the dear orthopraxis of the Church, which has always praised widowhood, but has never prohibited second nuptials to widows among the laity. (90-95)

³² Athanasius, Hilary, Ephraem, John Chrysostom, Ambrose, Basil, Gregory of Nazianzus, Jerome, Augustine, and Cyril of Alexandria-all of them designated in the Catholic Church as not only as Fathers, but also as Doctors–clearly taught Mary’s virginity post partum. There were several other Fathers such as Epiphanius, Gregory of Nyssa, Didymus the Blind, and Zeno of Verona who also clearly upheld Mary’s virginity post partum. One would be hard pressed to find a doctrine that elicited a clearer consensus (no Father ever opposed it). (Ibid., p. 92)

³⁵ Cf. ibid. Hunter also asserts that the fact that Mary bore children to Joseph is implied in De carne Christi 23, more clearly in De monogamia 8, and explicitly in Adversus Marcionem 4.19. Cf. “Helvidius, Jovinian, and the Virginity of Mary,” 66 and 66 n. 77. However, the fact of the matter is that in the De carne Christi 23 there are no statements for or against Mary’s virginity beyond the birth of Christ. The brothers of Jesus are not even mentioned. Tertullian simply affirms that Mary was a virgin mother. His expression “uirgo, quantum a uiro, non uirgo, quantum a partu” reflects his anti-docetist agenda. Nothing beyond the birth of Christ is considered. The text of the De monogamia I have already shown to be inconclusive at best. In the Adversus Marcionem 4 .19, Tertullian does indeed answer the Marcionites about their interpretation of Matt 12:48 by arguing that the meaning of the text is that Jesus prefers the relationship of faith to one of blood. But once again, only by assuming what needs to be shown-namely, that the brothers of Jesus are children of Mary–can one conclude that Tertullian’s rhetorical statements constitute an explicit assertion against Mary’s virginity post partum. (P. 94)

IV

Although Meier considered the witness of Tertullian (born ca. 155), he omits any reference to Origen (born ca. 185). But Origen’s testimony cannot be omitted in a serious treatment of the subject. As Henri Crouzel has noted,

[Origen] was the first theologian clearly to teach the perpetual virginity of Mary, for the writers of the 2nd century, like Justin and Irenaeus, only did so implicitly by calling her Mary the Virgin. For Origen this is by no means, as has been suggested, an open question, with no obligation on the Christian to believe it: it is the only “healthy” view of the matter and that word is used to express a close connection with the faith; those who uphold the contrary are treated as heretics; Mary among women is the first fruits of virginity as Jesus is among men.⁴⁴

This paragraph brings out at least two important points. First, Meier gives no historical or philological significance to the fact that in early Christian literature Mary is called “the virgin,” beyond the immediate context of the virginal conception and birth of Christ.⁴⁵ Second, Meier implies that the Helvidian position he defends as most probable had a genuine place in the tradition of the early Church.⁴⁶ But according to the positive historical witness of Origen, this is simply not true. Origen asserts that “no one who sanely thinks about Mary would imagine she had a son but Jesus.”⁴⁷ As Crouzel points out, in the theological vocabulary of Origen, the adjective hygins from the adverb translated above as “sanely” (“healthily” is also correct and perhaps gives a better connotation in our case)-implies a normative view with an obligation to believe.⁴⁸ Origen does not call the Helvidian opinion heretical, but he treats it as such. For him Mary’s virginity is hardly an opinion open for debate; it is a fact identified with the rule of faith. In other words, according to Origen’s witness (i.e., since at least the early third century), Mary’s virginity post partum has been considered part of the truth Christians should hold. Origen’s explicit testimony is the more significant since he, despite his theological speculations, which led him to commit some serious errors, knew to distinguish carefully between theological speculation and the rule of faith, between an opinion open to debate and what should be held as the truth.⁴⁹ (Pp. 98-100)