Talk:Perpetual virginity of Mary/Archive 1

Questions about content

The doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary has its origins in the apocryphal Gospel of James, written about 150 A.D.

No doctrine of the Catholic Church has origins in an apocryphal writing.

Yes, like the Donation of Constantine, for example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.81.93.116 (talk) 14:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

This statement is itself a statement of Catholic doctrine, which in this case is refuted by historical fact. The origin of the doctrine lies in its earliest documents.Wikipedia is a secular institution.Wetman 18:21, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The fact that a given document contains the earliest remaining reference to a doctrine is not evidence that that document was the source of that doctrine. All that should be claimed is that it's the earliest witness to the doctrine. Alec.brady 00:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The Virgin's vow of chastity was not at first considered to have been upheld by the greater events of her life. In the 4th century, Jerome wrote in his twenty-second Epistle to St. Eustochium, "I tell you without hesitation, that though God is almighty, He cannot restore a virginity that has been lost."

This is a very vague statement that I am having some difficulty parsing; can you suggest its provenance so I can understand it more fully?

Nothing vague about Jerome's statement of natural fact. What's to parse? Catholic apologists like Trc are too delicate to actually state that the BVM's hymen miraculously remained intact. The doctrine of the perpetual virginity of the BVM is a matter of faith not of ordinary fact. Wetman 18:21, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

You're assuming that 'intact hymen' is the same as 'virginity' - but Jerome's statement doesn't make sense if that's his meaning. Of course God would be able to restore a hymen; what he couldn't do is make the person never to have had sex. If we had the reference for the quote we could perhaps see what Jerome's intended meaning was. Alec.brady 00:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Catholic doctrine attests that virginity is irreparably lost by sexual pleasure, voluntarily and completely experienced, though rape does not impair virginity.

Catholic doctrine of virginity is not wholly irrelevant in an entry "Perpetual Virginity of Mary." Wetman 18:21, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

What does this have to do with the paragraph that contains it? Trc | [msg] 07:24, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Can you provide the sources you are using to generate the above material? I wish for a more complete accounting. The sentence prior to Jerome, and the context of Jerome, need some checking. Trc | [msg] 19:38, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC) (The letter of Jerome to Eustochium: http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-06/Npnf2-06-03.htm#P583_110510 Google brings it up in 0.3 seconds.)

The hymn Te Deum laudamus, used by Catholics and many Protestants, contains the line "When thou tookest upon thee to deliver man, thou didst not abhor the Virgin's womb" (Book of Common Prayer). Now I can't see what this has to do with the virginity of the BVM. That Jesus was conceived in her womb is not part of the question, is it? I haven't removed this. Perhaps it can be shown to be relevant. Wetman

James is concerned with the character and purity of Mary [3] and is the first literature to attest her perpetual virginity (James chs. 7 - 8). All the Bibles I can find only have 5 chapters in James. What version of the Bible contains 8 chapters?

I think the reference is to the Gospel of James - but the relevant passage is ch 19:2-20:1. Alec.brady 00:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Mary's perpetual virginity is also a doctrine of Islam, stated in the Qur'an.

It's a common muslim belief, but are you sure that it's stated in the Qur'an? If yes, please provide the verses. Surahs 3 (Al-Imran) and 19 (Maryam) report about her but do not seem to report to its perpetual virginity, I'd even understand the contrary - 19:22 speaks of the pain of giving birth. fr:Utilisateur:Lachaume

==History of the Doctrine== ("The factual accuracy of this article is disputed") If no earlier account of the perpetual virginity of the BVM than Gospel of James I ask what other facts are disputable. Wetman!.

The problems in the article were:

• Some material re virgin birth was irrelevant. (Agreed. Only perpetual virginity is relevant in this entry)
• An assertion about Mary's own relatives was trying to be a doubt about Mary but has no bearing. (I don't know what this refers to. Why not cut and paste it here for discussion)
• An assertion about origin in apocrypha is not false so much as misleading; it is tradition and Scripture that are the source; the Protoevangelium is relevant to the subject, of course. (Yes, not "false" at all. As far as "misleading", please quote the Scripture you are referring to. Please also give the earliest reference you can find in Roman Catholic tradition to the Perpetual Virginity of the BVM. Enter this material inm the entry please)
• Something about churches dedicated to Mary not having cemetaries to avoid suggestion of contamination is going to need substantiation to reappear in the article; I'm not familiar with that and at the least, it was unclear as to what was meant. (perfect nonense, I agree. out with it)
• By far the largest problem was this strange section. The quote has nothing to do with the assertion. The assertion remains without support. The assertion is entirely vague. The document quoted supports the perpetual virginity of Mary, as does its author, Jerome. The last sentence is not irrelevant but seems a gratuitous attempt to distract the reader. (let's eliminate the sentence that offends you. post it here)

The Virgin's vow of chastity was not at first considered to have been upheld by the greater events of her life. In the 4th century, Jerome wrote in his twenty-second Epistle to St. Eustochium, "I tell you without hesitation, that though God is almighty, He cannot restore a virginity that has been lost." Catholic doctrine attests that virginity is irreparably lost by sexual pleasure, voluntarily and completely experienced, though rape does not impair virginity,

Trc | [msg] 10:14, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

(my suggestions are appended in italics Wetman 13:31, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC))

• Can someone please include verifiable primary source material that Calvin upheld the perpetual virginity of Mary? The only source that was linked to it was a sentence from someone that said he did without any evidence. That is not good enough. I know academics believe he did, but I have yet to see the primary evidence or anyone linking to it or quoting it.

The New Testament references Jesus' adelphoi, which can mean either "brothers" or "brethren".[22] Both forms are employed in the various books of the bible, with examples of the latter including the "one-hundred twenty brothers" of Acts 1:15, and the Septuagint rendering of Abraham and Lot. Lot was Abraham's uncle, but is referred to as "adelphos".[23] Because "brother" is the more common usage, and because Greek has another word for cousin (anepsios), many translations of the Bible render passages which describe relations to Jesus (such as Matthew 13:55) as his "brothers" or "brothers and sisters", rather than "brethren".[24] At times these passages are cited as a basis for believing that Mary and Joseph had marital relations following the birth of Jesus.[25] However, even if the adelphoi are understood as brothers, the view that Joseph was a widower who had children from a previous marriage remains consistent with the various New Testament passages.

If we suppose, that Joseph was really a widower and had children from previous marriage, in that case these children can't be Jesus' brothers and sisters because of the simple fact, that Joseph was not Jesus' father in terms of biology nor his supposed previous wife was not Jesus' mother of course. Than how could be these children Jesus' brothers and sisters?

They would have been his brethren, i.e. kinsfolk, or his brothers by marriage. Lostcaesar 20:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick comment, but I can't accept it. What you say is only supposition which is not supported by the Bible. What is more, this supposition does not remain consistent with the various New Testament passages. For example, let us see this two verses from the New Testament:

"13. And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him.

14. When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt"

(Matthew 2:13-14)

The Bible do not mention that Joseph would have other children at the time of this event. It should be noted, that the Angel speaks only about Jesus and Mary. The Angel don't say that take the young child and his mother, and your whole family or your children.

Perhaps that point of view could be mentioned in the section which discusses Protestant objections. It doesn't, however, render the claim that Joseph was a widower with other children inconsistent with various New Testament passages, as thw quote says. It is not even inconsistent with these. Just for example, perhaps the other children were older and would have been left with members of the extended family. After all, if Jesus was a hunted child, such that it was too risky for him to be in Israhel, then taking other children along would be putting them in unnecessary danger. Jesus and anyone with him was on Herod's bad side. A child too old to be subject to the prophecy was no threat and better left out of harms way by seperating him from the wanted child. Lostcaesar 07:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps that point of view could be mentioned in the section which discusses Protestant objections - May I ask you why? In this section there are some other protestant objections too.

Furthermore if we suppose as you said that Joseph would have been left his children in Israel then in fact, leaving other children in Israel would rather be putting them in danger, because Herod could have been found them and would have been able to get knowledge of Jesus' residence. Thus your supposition can't be acceptable at all. Additionally this article's neutralitiy is strongly questionable.

Relevant scriptural citations

- *Ezekiel 44:2 ("This gate shall remain shut; it shall not be opened, and no one shall enter by it; for the Lord, the God of Israel, has entered by it; therefore it shall remain shut.")

This verse in context is nothing to do with Mary's virginity or lack of it. The context of this verse is the physical gate of the temple in Ezekiel's vision. Could be restored if it really is a common reference taken as referring to the topic, but I suggest that it needs a citation if this is the case.

Old Testament references to young women and closed gates

Two references in the Old Testament

• Ezekiel 44:2 ("This gate ... because the Lord the God of Israel hath entered in by it, and it shall be shut")
• Isaiah 7:14 ("a virgin shall conceive...")

These may or may not be "prophecies" for some believers, but they are irrelevant to the perpetual virginity of the BVM which is the subject here. Wetman 18:06, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

What I would recommend is that you mention in the theological discussion section something about Christianizing the OT. That would be the place for it. Also, observe that this article discusses all aspects of her virginity, as its perpetuity is comprised of its parts. Trc | [msg] 22:16, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I would not agree with this article discusses all aspects of her virginity, as its perpetuity is comprised of its parts unless you would agree that the Blessed Virgin Mary page should be merged in here. That page, together with Mary, the mother of Jesus, should cover the issue of her virginity up to the birth of Jesus, and this page what happened (or not) thereafter. I feel this page is now way beyond NPOV in any sense. --Henrygb 00:29, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

No, her perpetual virginity is comprised of three parts; the BVM page is about Mary generally in the Catholic spiritual sense, while Mary, the mother of Jesus entry is focus more on historicity issues. Doctrinal books treat the three aspects of virginity separately. Each entry will probably mention something about virginity, but this entry covers the three-fold doctrine (so to speak) in toto. As for balance, the doctrine is presented, and theological discussions are presented. The doctrine needs several sections to be expounded, but that's okay, the entry is for the doctrine. Trc | [msg] 00:40, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Under the guise of "removing editorial content, User Trc has removed this "The Protoevangelium of James, according to conservatives written ca. A.D. 125, according to other researchers some decades later" and redated the document. Wetman 04:22, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I can't find any corroboration of the 125 date, all info points to 150. Also, I don't see what "conservative" means. Whatever the date is, it is, but 150 appears to be a consensus. Trc | [msg] 04:40, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Let's get on point here. Is there a doctrine of the Roman Catholic church called the Perpetual Virginity of Mary? Yes, there is. Is it true that it is generally believed by conservative Catholics and not by conservative Protestants, who are primarily the only two groups of creatures who would care about such a thing, at least enough to argue over it? Yes, it is. Does the article in question fairly state both the essentials of the doctrine and the objections to it? In my opinion, as originally posted at least, it did and it does. Does it answer the question as to whether or not this doctrine is true? No it doesn't, and it can't, as the truth of such a doctrinal assertion is well beyond the scope of Wikipedia or any other secular encyclopedia. It's hard to be NPOV in the articles when everyone has a POV, but let's try to save the POV for the discussion and leave it out of the article to the extent that we can. User:rlquall 23:05 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Good example of "Jesus's brethren"

Matthew 12:46-50

46 As he was yet speaking to the multitudes, behold his mother and his brethren stood without, seeking to speak to him. 47 And one said unto him: Behold thy mother and thy brethren stand without, seeking thee. 48 But he answering him that told him, said: Who is my mother, and who are my brethren? 49 And stretching forth his hand towards his disciples, he said: Behold my mother and my brethren. 50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father, that is in heaven, he is my brother, and sister, and mother.

This story tells of how Jesus puts his followers before his own literal brothers. Seems like good Biblical evidence for Mary's relations with Joseph.

Citizen Premier 05:13, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Eh, these could just as easily have been cousins, or half brothers from Joseph's earlier marriage. If I'm not mistaken these alternate interpretations are already explained in the article, if you read it carefully. Wesley 06:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Request: Cultural context of the doctrine

Could anyone address the development of this doctrine vis-a-vis the second-century cultural attitudes towards sex and purity? I don't know enough about Catholic doctrine to do it, but as an outsider, it seems like this doctrine, that clearly equates "sex" with "lack of moral purity", even within the bonds of marriage, must have some sort of cultural origins. Have any scholarly papers been written on this topic that could be referenced here? BucInExile 06:10, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

If you look at the Old Testament references given, particularly the Ezekiel passage that is associated with Mary, you would come closer to the early attitude. Also if you examined Jewish attitudes towards the Temple, particularly the Holy of Holies. That's where God was most clearly present, and that space was set apart, with very limited access. Similarly, Mary's womb became a temple of God, consequently there would have been a natural inclination to keep her womb "set apart" for anyone who believed that Mary's firstborn son, Jesus, was God. I'm not positive, but I think that John Chrysostom's homilies take this approach when discussing Mary's virginity in the fourth century. Seeing it as a "sex is impure" issue seems to be projecting modern attitudes about sex back on the first and second centuries. Wesley 06:24, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I certainly don't want this to become an actual discussion of doctrine, but I would respectfully disagree with your last statement. The Ezekiel passage you mention, and the argument you put forward from Chrysostom, have no direct New Testament basis; there is no passage in the NT that discusses it. Therefore, I must conclude that these interpretations developed from some sort of second century cultural attitude, or perhaps the non-authoritative writings of an author that haven't been preserved, rather than anything preserved in NT Scripture. If Chrysostom's arguments accurately address the origin of the doctrine, then I would suggest this would be a valid section to be added to the article, perhaps under a "Origin of the Doctrine" heading. BucInExile 04:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Protoevangelium of James teaches perpetual virginity?

Where does the Protoevangelium of James teach the doctrine of perpetual virginity? The article says 7-8, but the text of 7-8 reads as follows:

7. And her months were added to the child. And the child was two years old, and Joachim said: Let us take her up to the temple of the Lord, that we may pay the vow that we have vowed, lest perchance the Lord send to us, and our offering be not received. And Anna said: Let us wait for the third year, in order that the child may not seek for father or mother. And Joachim said: So let us wait. And the child was three years old, and Joachim said: Invite the daughters of the Hebrews that are undefiled, and let them take each a lamp, and let them stand with the lamps burning, that the child may not turn back, and her heart be captivated from the temple of the Lord. And they did so until they went up into the temple of the Lord. And the priest received her, and kissed her, and blessed her, saying: The Lord has magnified thy name in all generations. In thee, on the last of the days, the Lord will manifest His redemption to the sons of Israel. And he set her down upon the third step of the altar, and the Lord God sent grace upon her; and she danced with her feet, and all the house of Israel loved her.

8. And her parents went down marvelling, and praising the Lord God, because the child had not turned back. And Mary was in the temple of the Lord as if she were a dove that dwelt there, and she received food from the hand of an angel. And when she was twelve years old there was held a council of the priests, saying: Behold, Mary has reached the age of twelve years in the temple of the Lord. What then shall we do with her, test perchance she defile the sanctuary of the Lord? And they said to the high priest: Thou standest by the altar of the Lord; go in, and pray concerning her; and whatever the Lord shall manifest unto thee, that also will we do. And the high priest went in, taking the robe with the twelve bells into the holy of holies; and he prayed concerning her. And behold an angel of the Lord stood by him, saying unto him: Zacharias, Zacharias, go out and assemble the widowers of the people, and let them bring each his rod; and to whomsoever the Lord shall show a sign, his wife shall she be. And the heralds went out through all the circuit of Judaea, and the trumpet of the Lord sounded, and all ran. (Roberts-Donaldson tr.)

Unless I've missed something, I can't find any clear statement of perpetual virginity, only statements of virginity at the time of the conception of Jesus. So, unless I have missed something, the statement in the article needs to be qualified to say that some people interpret the Protoevangelium of James as teaching the doctrine (or something along those lines), rather than asserting as a fact that it actually does. --MonkeeSage 23:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Chapters 19 and 20 describe Mary giving birth while remaining a virgin, and a midwife's confirmation of this after examining Mary. Chapter 9 has Joseph saying, "I have sons and am old, while she is young," which supplies the Orthodox explanation of Jesus' "brothers and sisters" mentioned in the canonical Gospels. If accepted, this effectively removes the Gospels' mention of Jesus' siblings as evidence that they were born to Mary. It also shows Joseph as an old man accepting responsibility for protecting Mary, instead of presenting them as a typical pair of young newlyweds. In these ways, this apocryphal gospel teaches Mary's perpetual virginity. Hope this helps. Wesley 06:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. But that still doesn't really provide any explicit statement about perpetual virginity: Joseph's statement is before he is betrothed to her, and the examination of the midwife only regards Jesus' birth, nothing is mentioned after Jesus' birth. I've seen some Roman Catholic apologists interpret the phrase "the virgin of the Lord" (τὴν παρθένον κυρίου) as a vocational title, i.e., Mary's "job" for her whole life. But that is an interpretation, not the necessary meaning of the expression, which may also be taken as a simple description ("the virgin who belonged to the Lord") or a statement of Mary's relationship with God ("the virgin in the care of the Lord"). So I still think that the article needs some sort of qualification, or an attribution of the interpretation. --MonkeeSage 06:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems explicit enough to me, when you consider that it isn't aimed at answering the exact question being posed by us today. As I said before, at the very least it supplies a narrative that harmonizes the different gospel accounts and adds more background information, that together supports the doctrine of perpetual virginity and removes potential obstacles found in the four Gospels. (And does this not by contradicting them but by suggesting another way to interpret them.) Wesley \

But if there has to be an attribution, the link already given at that point supplies this quote from Origen indicating that he at least understood it this way. "The Book [the Protoevangelium] of James [records] that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honor of Mary in virginity to the end, so that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word . . . might not know intercourse with a man after the Holy Spirit came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the firstfruit among men of the purity which consists in [perpetual] chastity, and Mary was among women. For it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the firstfruit of virginity" (Commentary on Matthew 2:17 [A.D. 248]). Anyone else want to weigh in on whether this is needed? Wesley 07:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

That Joseph was old does not ensure perpetual virginity for Mary, indeed Annas thought that Joseph was still able to engage in the procreative act when he saw Mary pregnant. Also, the fact that Joseph had previous children does not show that he had no other children with Mary (I'm not saying that he did). And the text doesn't mention anything about what happened after the birth of Jesus. So we really only have two indirect lines of inference: the alleged vocational title "the Virgin of the Lord," and the mention of Joseph having other children already. But no direct assetion.

The Origen quote would be good, but I suggest the full quote:

They thought, then, that He was the son of Joseph and Mary. But some say, basing it on a tradition in the Gospel according to Peter, as it is entitled, or "The Book of James," that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honour of Mary in virginity to the end, so that that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word which said, "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee," might not know intercourse with a man after that the Holy Ghost came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the first-fruit among men of the purity which consists in chastity, and Mary among women; for it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the first-fruit of virginity. (Commentary on Matthew, §10.17)

Notice that Origen does not claim that proto. James teaches perpetual virginity, only the prior children of Joseph. He says that those who appeal to that fact wish to establish perpetual virginity, which he thinks is reasonable; but that is different from saying that proto. James teaches perpetual virginity. So I still request that we qualify the statement about proto. James to show that the text doesn't directly assert perpetual virginity, though some (many?) interpret it to teach that, or at least to be consistent with it. --MonkeeSage 19:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

"Mother of GOD"

"...the mother of God..." (from the article). Isn't it supposed to be "mother of Jesus"? Should this be changed? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.164.209.137 (talk • contribs) .

See theotokos. In brief, Trinitarian Christians believe she was both (since they believe that Jesus is also the eternal Son, the second person of the Trinity, fully man and fully God). It is not used to mean that God came into being at Jesus' birth, but to affirm that Jesus was "very God of very God", to use the Nicene expression, as well as "made man". » MonkeeSage « 11:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

A couple of issues...

How are statements like "The doctrine's historicity is questionable" helpful? Firstly, the claim itself expresses a particular viewpoint on the controversy. No matter how silly you believe a doctrine is, the statement clearly constitutes taking a particular 'side'. Something like "Several historians have claimed that the doctrine lacks a sound historical basis", followed by some references would be acceptable.

The stuff about the extent to which individuals do or don't subscribe to the doctrine appears irrelevant. It's the doctrine itself that is being described, not the response to it. If it is essential that the survey be mentioned, can the editor who added it please give a detailed reference so that readers can scrutinize it?

GuyIncognito 20:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

You're right about that statement, so I removed it. I think it's also questionable whether the early Reformers actually doubted Mary's perpetual virginity, even if they disagreed with venerating her or with the celibacy of the priesthood. But, I'll gather more references before I tackle that. Wesley 16:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I have amended the title as well as (earlier) the phrase "The doctrine's historicity is questionable" to reflect that all I am saying is that the doctrine claims an historical basis, so therefore may be questioned by historical method - which is what the paragraph below has always done. The paragraph itself does not really do justice to the biblical material, which should come at the start (rather than the reformers' views) but let's leave that for another day.

Revision

I added the citebook template structure, with accompanying notes. I added various notes to the previously unreferenced article. I moved the material into a more fitting structure. I cleaned up redundancies in the prose. I removed unverifiable information. I added the image. Lastly, I added or fixed many internal links. In my view, the article still needs a comprehensive section on Islamic views, but the material on this previously was disorganized, conflicting, and unreferenced, so I could not include it in this version. Lostcaesar 09:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Biased?

There doesn't seem to be much here in the way of refutations or anything like that, which is usually common to religious articles... do other types of christians all belive the same as catholics or are there any who don't believe in perpetual virginity, and do they have any alternate readings of the quoted passages? Kuronue 19:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, I can think of nothing relevant to be said. "Some, on the other hand, point out that virgins do not have babies"? If you're aware of any specific skeptical argument beyond a refutation of miracles in general, I'd love to see you add it here. It'd be enlightening. 216.52.69.217 20:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

This article is really biased... I added a cleanup POV marker. Fennessy 17:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

rm today following (imo) fine work by User:Ritterschaft Springnuts 19:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

scepticism section

The following Text I have moved to talk

==Skepticism==

Some believe that the greek word Adelphos is literally used to describe the siblings of Jesus, and that Mary and Joseph resumed normal marital relations following the birth of Christ as described by the greek word heos (until). Examples abound on a typical literature search for "perpetual virginity", however the counter point of view tends to be held by heterodox organizations (eg. Baptists) that do not have one set of defined beliefs and thus cannot be referenced as an institution holding the opposing view. One example might be the church of Christ. Generally, those opposed to the tradition of Mary's pereptual virginity are biblical literalists who oppose the use of tradition and theology to shape one's belief in addition to scripture. Sometimes they express concern that the perpetual viriginity of Mary as a temple virgin cared for by Joseph, taken from apocryphal writings, was influenced by pagan Roman ideas of vestal virgins who took a vow of chastity for life, or that there are other pagan overtones to the veneration of Mary. To other skeptics, the dogma of Mary's perpetual virginity is best viewed as a spiritual tradition that helps develop a love for Mary as a spritual mother, but that it is not necessarily a historical fact or supported by cannonical scripture. There are multiple sources of this view, which have been propagated by skeptics who are sometimes (but not always) anti-catholic in viewpoint. It should be noted that such skepticism is not a particularly "protestant" view, as the prominent protestant theologians such as Martin Luther, Calvin, and Wellesley along with many others supported and upheld Rome's view of perpetual viriginity. .

From main article Mary and Isis

Many scholars believe that Isis worship in late Roman times was the primary influence behind Catholic development of the cult of the Virgin Mary. Evidence suggests that this allowed the Catholic Church to absorb a huge number of converts who had formerly believed in Isis, and would not have converted unless Catholicism offered them an "Isis-like" female focus for their faith. Iconographically the similarities between the seated Isis holding or suckling the child Horus (Harpocrates) and the seated Mary and the baby Jesus, is apparent.

Reasons for the move: (1) the issue of adelphos and heos is already covered, (2) the text is basically unsourced; the first ref is problematic and not a direct supporting source, the second seems not very relevant and besides already covered, (3) it is generally vague, who are these "they"'s?, (4) the section on Isis seem out of place and rather unrelated to the topic above, it is also unsources and (it sure seems) inaccurate. Lostcaesar 15:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

This seems very biased. Wikipedia should be open to balanced views. Clearly a segment of people have this view, and disagree with the nuanced reading of heos and adelphos. Wikipedia must have a NPV. If you would prefer to better represent the counter argument in the main body of the argument, that's great, but simply moving it to discussion is innapropriate. I will ask for objective opinions from editors. Sandwich Eater 18:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Sections need proper sourcing &c; the above difficulties have not been overcome as yet. Lostcaesar 08:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I pruned it down to only a few statements, each of them has a reference page. Sandwich Eater 18:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

You wrote in your edit summary: "rv - deleting editor has a POV issue - previous editor already complained about lack of balance in the article. The section is sourced properly". No, Sandwich Eater, the POV issue is yours. I see that you've made an effort to remove your POV, but you need to try a little harder. I personally am a skeptic on this issue (i.e. I do not believe in PVOM) but it is obvious to me, when I read this section of the article, that Wikipedia is trying to convince me instead of trying to inform me. Convincing people is not Wikipedia's job. And your wiki formatting doesn't even render correctly.

And the "Mary and Isis" section is completely off-topic here, unless you can add some evidence that Isis worship included a belief in perpetual virginity. By the way, the picture that someone added to the Isis article, with Isis holding Horus side-by-side with Mary holding Jesus, is just silly. They both show a mother holding a baby, so of course they look similar. I'm sure I could find a paparazzi photo of Britney Spears holding her baby in the same position; does that mean that the tabloid newspaper publishers and readers are really Isis worshippers? -- 70.171.4.97 19:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Um, no, unsigned, one of the sources I mentioned specifically mentions the Isis/Horace connection in its accusations. The section is fine and within wikipedia standards, I hope you are not Lostcaesar using a sock puppet. I do happen to support PVOM but I do not believe in using wikipedia as an unbalanced soapbox. This article is not balanced, as mentioned by other editors on this talk page (editors who signed their user name). Sandwich Eater 19:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The first problem with the section is sources. It only has two, neither of which clearly support the information presented, and both are not reliable. One is a homepage for a church. The other is a polemical webpage called "jack chick publications" - I believe this is a rather infamous source, but whatever the case its insufficent. The second difficulty is that some of the material is already discussed. The third is that some seems irrelevant or just incorrect (like the "Mary and Isis" section). I moved the text here so that these problems could be addressed. Please assume good faith on the part of other editors. Lostcaesar 21:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Lostcaesar here. I saw that section two days ago, and was not very happy with it, but didn't try to take it out. However, I'll admit that I was pleased when I saw someone else taking it out. My problems in particular are phrases such as "some scholars believe" (which scholars?) and "evidence suggests" (what evidence?). I agree also with the anonymous editor who said that it seemed to be trying to convince rather than inform. And from what I've seen of Jack Chick publications, they would not be considered a scholarly source. Can we leave it here for a while instead of putting it back into the article? Maybe some of it could be reworded and co back in? Perhaps it doesn't need a special section called "Skepticism". Perhaps the relevant information could be incorporated into other parts of the article? ElinorD 22:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: "Um, no, unsigned, one of the sources I mentioned specifically mentions the Isis/Horace connection in its accusations" -- Which source? What accusations? You don't link to any source; you just have weasel words like "Some scholars believe that ..." and "Evidence suggests that ..." and "the similarities ... is apparent." This sort of writing is not appropriate for Wikipedia. And even if you do find a reliable source, it won't be relevant in this article, unless your source says that the followers of Isis believed that she remained perpetually virgin after childbirth. Re: "The section is fine and within wikipedia standards" -- No, it is not. As I wrote just above, weasel words are not appropriate. And you keep re-inserting stuff that doesn't even render correctly! Repeatedly re-inserting, while refusing to address legitimate objections, is not cool. Re: "I hope you are not Lostcaesar using a sock puppet" -- No, I am not Lostcaesar, as Wikipedia administration can verify if necessary. Re: "I do happen to support PVOM, but I do not believe in using wikipedia as an unbalanced soapbox" -- I was just about to agree with you, but then I took a few moments to read the article without your Skepticism section, and I think that the anti-PVOM point of view (which happens to be my point of view) is already represented, nearly adequately, without your section. I think a few small changes would be enough to balance the article. For example, the sentence about Luther should use the word "accepted" instead of "affirmed." And the first sentence about "heos" needs to be made more neutral. And there is a slight problem with bias in the organization of the article; it suffers from this problem described in WP:NPOV: "an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization — for instance, refuting opposing views as one goes along makes them look a lot worse than collecting them in an opinions-of-opponents section." These minor bias problems should be solved, but your Skepticism section doesn't solve them; in its current state, it only reduces the quality of the article. -- 70.171.4.97 22:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

OK unsigned, it may be possible that you're right and that your article does incorporate a reasonable range of counter arguments within the text of the article. It still lacks sourcing or citations to the more radical views such as those presented in the Isis article, but it does at least mention that opponents make such parallels. I am not clear on what your references are with regard to not rendoring correctly - I am using the standard wikipedia editor. Sandwich Eater 01:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The Isis stuff doesn't need to be in this article because it doesn't have anything to do with the issue this article is supposed to be about, which is, more or less, the question of whether Mary ever had any other kids. If something isn't relevant to the subject of the article, it needs to be in some other article. The rendering problem isn't about which editor you use, it's about how you deal with brackets and ampersands and other special characters. If you use them carelessly you end up with weird problems, like sentences getting ripped out of the main body of the article and sucked down into the references section, and HTML source code being shown to the user instead of being rendered as markup, etcetera. -- 70.171.4.97 06:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought the critics were contending that if Isis was ever virgin and Mary is ever virgin then Mary=Isis or Mary=perpetual vestal virgin. I suppose idolatry is a broad enough word to cover all that, and is mentioned in part of a sentence. Sandwich Eater 06:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The idolatry part does not cover that exactly. The idolatry refers to the view of some reformers that veneration of Mary was akin to worship and thus a violation of the first commandment. Now, if someone has a theory that this is historically connected to the cult of Isis then that seems different. I cannot imagine that being a significant view, but I could be wrong (it is historically absurd). Whatever the case it would be a matter for a different article unless it had something to do with Mary's perpetual virginity. The bit about the vestal virgins is more in line except that the vestal virgins never had children, any children, and thus their virginity is of the more regular sort. Whatever the case, we would need a source that is reliable and some reason to think that the view was notable to deserve mention. As yet we don't have that, which is the problem. As for concerns about a balance by including skepticism, in general I think its pretty obvious that some people doubt a certain religious doctrine (i.e. people not apart of the religion), and its so obvious that it basically goes without mention. We don't need a paragraph in every article on a religious doctrine saying that some people don't believe it. Lostcaesar 09:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Brethren

I don't mean to be stupid (but it often happens anyway), but what exactly is this section trying to say? The New Testament references Jesus' adelphoi, which can mean either "brothers" or "brethren"...many translations of the Bible render passages which describe relations to Jesus (such as Matthew 13:55) as his "brothers" or "brothers and sisters", rather than "brethren". Don't brethren and brothers mean exactly the same thing? The OED says that brethren is a special plural of brother, but gives it no extra or different meaning. It seems that here the implication is that it means relatives or brothers and cousins or something; i think that somehow too much is being made of the particular word form that an English translation of the Bible uses. Can someone explain this to me, or perhaps we can rewrite it a bit more clearly? Cheers, Lindsay 16:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Brethren means relatives and is not limited to biological brothers. Perhaps the article could be more clear on this. The debate is whether the Bible called Jesus’ names relations brothers, i.e. children of Mary, or brethren, i.e. other familial relations not necessarily entailing that Mary had other children. Lostcaesar 17:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but according to whom is brethren not limited to biological brothers? It means, exactly, brothers. Now, i agree, the word is used, in both its forms (brothers and brethren) to mean assorted varieties of relatives, but my point was that it does mean the same as brothers, and an invalid distinction was being drawn in the article. I understand the need to distinguish between Jesus' blood brothers and his cousins or other family; but this isn't the way to do it. Cheers, Lindsay 17:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, the question isn't over English words, but Greek. We could say that adelphoi means "kinsfolk" if you would prefer. Lostcaesar 22:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I did just that; see if i done good. On a slightly different point (same paragraph, though), the reference to Genesis 13:8 needs to be inserted somewhere, and in my copy of the LXX Jeremiah 34:9 doesn't contain the word adelphoi. Maybe we could pull out Jeremiah and put in Genesis? Cheers, Lindsay 06:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Possible See Also

I'm not sure whether or not this would be beneficial, but I was thinking that it might offer good perspective to include a link to an article or group of articles that discuss virgins in Greek mythos... I mean to say, the importance attributed to Mary's virginity could be compared to the importance attributed to the perpetual virginity of certain Greek goddesses and even mortal maidens (the Vestal Virgins?). I'm not sure how to add such a link without implying that Christianity is equally mythic in nature. Some intro like "Perpetual virginity shows up in other cultures as well, such as the folk tales of the ancient Greeks"? Someone do it better than I can, please. Kilyle 07:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)