Hidden History of Early Christian Art

 

Children not named after father

One of the arguments in favor of the children being cousins is the claim that the Jews did not name their children after the father (see note 62 referring point). However, the following shows that is not true:

Luk 1:59 And it came to pass, that on the eighth day they came to circumcise the child; and they called him Zacharias, after the name of his father.

Perpetual Virginity of Mary

Here's a link to a goarch article on the Ever-Virginity of Mary. Here's their comments on the historical question:

Indeed, to suggest (a) that the tradition about her perpetual virginity could have been introduced after apostolic times, (b) that this tradition would have gone little noticed by a Church in the throes of questioning everything about what it believed in the first millennium, (c) that such a novel tradition should be considered inconsequential enough to pass without discussion before it became universally proclaimed, and (d) that such a tradition should have no discernible literary or geographical origin and yet be universally accepted from very early in the Church's history, is to form a very unlikely hypothesis.

Word for cousin/kin

In this passage, the mother and brothers of Jesus come to see Him:

Mar 3:31-35 There came then his brethren and his mother, and, standing without, sent unto him, calling him. And the multitude sat about him, and they said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee. And he answered them, saying, Who is my mother, or my brethren? And he looked round about on them which sat about him, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother.

The Greek word used here is αδελφοι, or brother. There are other uses of the word brother which imply a broader use than brother however, there is a Greek word for cousin/kin, συγγενεις and that word is not used here.

Talk about Mary - Part 1

Piece of an Orthodox and Evangelical conversation about Mary.

Perpetual Virginity of Mary

The claim has been made by some Orthodox that:

For about 1,600 years the entire Church affirmed the ever-virginity of Mary. The notion that she did not remain a virgin was introduced by the Anabaptists and some Calvinists long after the Reformation was an established reality.

I don't believe that is historically accurate.

The teaching that Mary was ever-virgin is, as Michael Hyatt has noted (MP3) a major sticking point for some in conversion. For me it's the biggest theological point I have remaining. I've studied it and from what I can tell it was not the uniform teaching of the Orthodox church from the beginning.

There was a diversity of opinion about this view at the time of Origen (ca 248 AD), for instance. Origen wrote about the origin of the teaching and the diversity of opinion on the matter:

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 that 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 first-fruit of virginity" (Commentary on Matthew 2:17 [A.D. 248]).

Tertullian taught that Mary lost her virginity in the conception of Christ. (De carn Chr. 23.) Tertullian also believed that Mary had relations with Joseph after Jesus was born (Adv Marc 4, 19 de monog. 8, de virg vel. 6.). Tertullian also believed that the brothers were actually borne by Mary.

At the time of Jerome, there were people who rejected the view. Example, "The Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary Against Helvidius," ca 383 AD. Helvidius maintained that the mention in the Gospels of the "sisters" and "brethren" of our Lord was proof that the Blessed Virgin had subsequent issue, and he supported his opinion by the writings of Tertullian and Victorinus.

At the time of Augustine, there were people who rejected the teaching:

Heretics called Antidicomarites are those who contradict the perpetual virginity of Mary and affirm that after Christ was born she was joined as one with her husband" (Heresies 56 [A.D. 428]).

The Antidicomarianity and the Arian Eynomius openly taught that the brothers of Jesus were borne by Mary. Basil of Caesarea did not agree, but admitted that the view was widely held and is not incompatible with orthodoxy (Hom,. in sanctam Christi gen (PG 31, 1468 f.))..

Also, it seems to me that there are two competing and contradictory claims about who the "brothers and sisters of Jesus" were. One is that they were children of Joseph from a prior marriage. Another contradictory view is that they were cousins of Jesus. Both can't be right but both claim ancient origins.

The phrase "ever-virgin" did not come into vogue until post-Nicaea.

Chrysostom pointed out Mary was a sinner (e. g. hom in Matt 44:2, in John 21:2). In fact, at that time, only in Syria was Ephraem calling her free from every sin, like her son (Carm, Nisib 28, 8).

Hilliary denounced those who denied the perpetual virginity of Mary, demonstrating that there were people who denied it at his time (Comm in Matt 1, 3 f.).

Jerome invented the theory that the brothers of Jesus were actually cousins, not his brothers.

Interestingly the heretic Pelagius (who believed in the possibility of living a sinless life) believed that Mary lived a sinless life. Augustine agreed with Pelagius, but taught that Mary was a singularity.

The Lateran synod of AD 649 was the first to stress the threefold character of Mary's virginity.

Thus, contrary to the Council of Trent, the perpetual virginity was not a concensus of the Fathers.

Evidence of prayers to Mary in the first four centuries of the church is almost non-existent (Kelly - Early Christian Doctrines, pp 491-on).