FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Explaination please
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
In St. Matthews Gospel we read in 1:25
Quote:
And he knew her not til she bought forth her first born son: and he called him Jesus

From what I can gather from reading Geniuses (can't remember the chapter)
Quote:'Adam knew Eve and she bought forth him a son'
To 'know' some one is to have 'relations' with right?
I suppose what I am asking here is Did Joseph know Mary in this regard or am I reading to much into it?
I'm a bit confused.
:)
Perhaps it means.....St Joseph did not know that she was to be "Immaculate" the Mother of God or without Sin etc. Our Lady would not have bragged about this. And it was not until she gave birth that he realised who SHE was.

Thats just my interpetation of the verse you copied.

To "know" someone in this manner of speaking is, indeed, to have marital relations.  This is true in both of the quotes you provided.

In the case of the one involving St. Joseph, the confusion likely arises from the use of the English word "until", which does not mean that he knew her after that time. 

Our Lady is perpetually a virgin - before, during, and after the birth of our Savior - as it says in the Mass in several places; for example, in the Confiteor we say "...beatae Mariae semper Virginis..."

Liza_Do_A_Lot Wrote:And it was not until she gave birth that he realised who SHE was.

This is absolutely incorrect.  She knew she was the Mother of God the moment she conceived Him in her virginal womb.
OLRansom Wrote:
Liza_Do_A_Lot Wrote:And it was not until she gave birth that he realised who SHE was.

This is absolutely incorrect. She knew she was the Mother of God the moment she conceived Him in her virginal womb.

Sorry, if you miss read my meaing.....Of course Our Lady knew, but I said HE realised....meaning St Joseph......

Marty, what have you started up here!
Liza_Do_A_Lot Wrote:[Of course Our Lady knew, but I said HE realised....meaning St Joseph......

I beg your pardon, as I did misread your post. Either I was in a hurry, or the green color messed with my eyes.

The clarified (read, original) statement, however, is still utterly incorrect. An angel told St. Joseph - well before the Nativity - that the Child in Mary's womb was conceived by the Holy Ghost. That is the sole reason he did not proceed with his plans to put her away quietly.
Here is the explanation from the DR online at drbo.org.

LINK


Quote:

25 "Till she brought forth her firstborn son"... From these words Helvidius and other heretics most impiously inferred that the blessed Virgin Mary had other children besides Christ; but St. Jerome shews, by divers examples, that this expression of the Evangelist was a manner of speaking usual among the Hebrews, to denote by the word until, only what is done, without any regard to the future. Thus it is said, Genesis 8. 6 and 7, that Noe sent forth a raven, which went forth, and did not return till the waters were dried up on the earth. That is, did not return any more. Also Isaias 46. 4, God says: I am till you grow old. Who dare infer that God should then cease to be: Also in the first book of Machabees 5. 54, And they went up to mount Sion with joy and gladness, and offered holocausts, because not one of them was slain till they had returned in peace. That is, not one was slain before or after they had returned. God saith to his divine Son: Sit on my right hand till I make thy enemies thy footstool. Shall he sit no longer after his enemies are subdued? Yea and for all eternity. St. Jerome also proves by Scripture examples, that an only begotten son, was also called firstborn, or first begotten: because according to the law, the firstborn males were to be consecrated to God; Sanctify unto me, saith the Lord, every firstborn that openeth the womb among the children of Israel, etc. Ex. 13. 2.
 

Thank you for that post and link.  God reward your efforts.
This is a prime demonstration of why one should always read scripture with a commentary. Scripture is complicated, and as laymen, we're not always equipped to understand every verse. The proper response is to ask, as Marty did, of course, but how many people in our time would have their faith momentarily weakened after reading that verse and seeing its apparent contradiction with Catholic doctrine in the English translation?

Interesting interpretation, Liza :) However, in this case it's the old way of phrasing it... "know" is a sort of archaic way of saying "to have marital relations," and that's what the verse is referring to.
DominusTecum Wrote:This is a prime demonstration of why one should always read scripture with a commentary.

Absolutely. In this specific situation, English "until" has a strong connotation that what was not done until the event was done after it. The Greek word "heos" used here does not imply that Joseph "knew" her after Jesus' birth. It simply means that, at the time of Jesus' birth, Joseph had not had relations with his wife, without saying one way or the other whether he did afterward. The fact that He was called the first-born son is also no difficulty, since it is true that He was the first-born of the Virgin; it just happens that she had no second-born. This passage is a prime example of the limitations inherent to translation. It is true that "heos" and "until" have similar denotations; "until" is an acceptable translation of "heos." However, "until" has a connotation in English usage that "heos" does not necessarily have in Greek. But there is not an English word that perfectly captures the sense of "heos," so "until" is used as the least unsatisfactory translation.

This is a good example of why sola scriptura cannot be what God intended - not everyone has equal literary facility. For the majority of Christian history most people couldn't read at all. Even since literacy has greatly increased, not everyone can read either the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek of the Bible or the authorized Vulgate translation into Latin, nor will it ever be so. Then consider that translation itself introduces all sorts of difficulties; it is more of an art than a science. That is why a good commentary is so important. It can explain difficulties in translation and prevent distortions that could arise from the limitations inherent to translation.
Pages: 1 2