Jerome and Ever Virginity

Catholics in supporting the ever virginity often turn to the writings of Jerome in refuting a man named Helvidius, a Christian in Rome around 380 AD. Helvidius had refuted the ever virginity doctrine with Matthew 1:25 and other passages.

Though some manuscripts do not have the word firstborn in Matthew 1:25 it is clear Jerome concedes the word is in his manuscripts, whether in Matthew or Luke. Also keep in mind the codex Vaticanus may have been altered in the 10th century, so that early texts of Matthew had it but later facsimiles did not.

We know that Catholics sided with Jerome, but the argument does highlight that there were two competing views, that Mary was an ever virgin and the view Mary had other children. These arguments were early in Christianity and not a product of the Protestant reformation.

I take the view the Catholic church was the heresy and Helvidius was correct in his presentation. His was a competing view in Rome before 400 AD. Though Catholics side with Jerome, we should understand that he often takes competing views against Catholic teaching. He, for instance, believed the Apocrapha was not Canon or scripture, but considered them history. He often fell on both sides of arguments and is very human, very brilliant but also wrong about some matters according to current Catholic leaders.

Jerome's writings do actually defeat the Catholic view in some interesting ways. Catholics believe Jesus had a miraculous birth and never tore Mary's matrix (hymen) when being born. They believe she remained a virgin physically with her matrix intact. A teaching of Ambrose based upon the Proto Evangelium of James.

Helvidian's arguments basically refuted 3 arguments from the Proto Evangelium.

1. Joseph and Mary did not actually marry.

2. Joseph protected Mary but was not her husband, they did not live together.

3. Mary had a miraculous birth when delivering Jesus.

Jerome's argument concerning the word firstborn shows that he understood this word to mean the first to open  the matrix. Here is Jerome's argument from point 12 of his argument against Helvidius.

"12. Our position is this: Every only begotten son is a first-born son, but not every first-born is an only begotten. By first-born we understand not only one who is succeeded by others, but one who has had no predecessor. Numbers 18:15 Everything, says the Lord to Aaron, that opens the womb of all flesh which they offer unto the Lord, both of man and beast, shall be yours: nevertheless the first born of man shall you surely redeem, and the firstling of unclean beasts shall you redeem. The word of God defines first-born as everything that opens the womb."

Thus, the idea Mary remained a virgin with an untorn Matrix was foreign to Jerome, even though he believed she never had sexual relations with Joseph. Catholic dogma on the subject eventually moved beyond Jerome's teaching.

It proves the word firstborn was in Jerome's text, but now Catholics have removed it from their modern Bible, They have knowingly corrupted the text. The word firstborn is useful in proving Mary's matrix was torn and she was not physically a virgin.

Still Catholics use Jerome to refute several points Helvidius made. This is from a commentary in the online Duoay Rheims bible site.

[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.

Just a cursory look at the arguments they present would show they are using the passages incorrectly.

1. The Raven in Gen 8:6-7 was not said to come back, there is no mention of the Raven coming back at all. Thus they incorrectly infer that the raven not coming back is meant. He went to and fro till the waters were dried up is not a reference to coming back to the Ark at all, but a reference to finding a place to rest, the raven no longer had to wander about. It seems the raven lit upon different hill tops until a suitable place opened up to dwell permanently. His character was different than the dove and he eventually found a suitable place to rest. The dove did not. So, the word "until" is marking something that would cease. Their argument was deceptive.

They simply interject the thought of not coming back. Coming back is a reference to the dove, not the Raven. "Till is referencing the act of going to and fro". "Till" does not mean eternal searching, since the waters dried the raven had no reason to keep searching. Thus it helps our case, not Jerome's.

Gen 8:6  And it came to pass at the end of forty days, that Noah opened the window of the ark which he had made:

Gen 8:7  And he sent forth a raven, which went forth to and fro, until the waters were dried up from off the earth.

Gen 8:8  Also he sent forth a dove from him, to see if the waters were abated from off the face of the ground;

Gen 8:9  But the dove found no rest for the sole of her foot, and she returned unto him into the ark, for the waters were on the face of the whole earth: then he put forth his hand, and took her, and pulled her in unto him into the ark.

2. The example from Isaiah 46 is also very corrupt, the reference to God "I am He" is not a reference to God's existence but to him being the one carrying Israel from birth to old age. Thus, Jerome uses it in a deceptive way.

3. Jerome's usage of I Corinthians 15 is also corrupt, since the reign of Christ in the Messianic kingdom will cease and a new era will begin after the resurrection. Catholics assume the Messianic kingdom continues for all eternity when it actually transitions and God the Father himself takes possession of the kingdom.

Jerome's argument pretty much falls apart

see

1Co 15:28  And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all. 1Co 15:27  For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. 1Co 15:26  The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. 1Co 15:25  For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. 1Co 15:24  Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.

We must also realize that Catholics want us to believe the church always believed in the ever virginity of Mary, they claim Helvidius was the first to express the idea Jesus had brothers by Mary. Here is a quote from a Catholic.

Since the inception of the Church of Christ in 33 AD, the Holy Tradition has always held that Mary, the Mother of God is Perpetually Virgin.  And this dogma was not challenged for over 300 years, until a Roman Citizen, known as Helvidius,  in 380 A.D., maintained that the mention in the Gospels of the "sisters" and "brethren" of our Lord was proof that the Blessed Virgin had subsequent children with Joseph.  He supported his mistaken opinion by the writings of Tertullian and Victorinus. The Blessed Jerome, wrote a response to Helvidius, pointing out the errors of the theory espousing the opinion that  Mary the Mother of our Lord had had children after birthing Jesus, the Christ Child.  Jerome's arguments are persuasive and successfully defeat Helvidius' erroneous contentions.

The reality is there is nothing said about the ever virginity before the Proto evangelium of James and Helvidius is only addressing a new teaching called the ever virginity. All former teaching on Mary addressed the virgin conception, not her ever virginity.

How could Helvidus be the first to teach it if he invoked earlier writings? Thus, Mary having children was the earlier teaching.