Marias eviga jungfrulighet diskuterades tidigare på Aletheia. Jag skulle vilja framföra några argument för att det inte var troligt med någon jungfrulighet sedan Jesus var avlad.
Maria var trolovad (!) med Josef (Matt 1:18) han kallades också Marias man (!)(Matt 1:16). När Josef i en dröm fick se en ängel som sa åt honom att han skulle ta med sig barnet och hans mor och fly till Egypten, behövde han bara stiga upp (Matt 2:13), vilket tyder på att de sov under samma tak. Lukas kallar Maria och Josef för föräldrarna (Luk 2:17). När Josef och Maria var i Betlehem för att skattskriva sig så var tiden inne för henne att föda. Eftersom de inte fick plats i något härbärge tyder väl det mesta på att Josef fick handgripligt hjälpa till vid födseln. Kanske just därför han kunde kallas barnets förälder. Han hade knappast fått varit med vid förlossningen om Maria avsåg att bli evig jungfru. (Luk 2:6) Skulle sedan Jesus ha växt upp med en plastpappa som fick sova i gästrummet? Det blir så osannolikt att det inte är rimligt.
Jag tror att Maria och Josef hade ett gott samliv som tjänade som exempel för den uppväxande Jesus, som troligen (eller ganska säkert) inte hade egna erfarenheter. Hur skulle det annars ha sett ut? Blev Jesus helt frånkopplad från den viktigaste relationen i en människas liv i två generationer? Både genom sina "föräldrar" och genom sitt eget liv? Nej, troligen hade hans föräldrar ett exemplariskt förhållande, som gjorde pojken Jesus harmonisk i frågan. Hur skulle han annars ha varit så vis?
"Men jag säger er: den som ser på en kvinna med åtrå har redan i sitt hjärta brutit hennes äktenskap." (Matt 5:28)
Med en pappas som sovit i gästrummet hade väl inte ovanstående kommentar varit möjlig?
Eftersom detta inte är en ny fråga och ett ofta förekommande argument brukar vara att det talas om Jesu bröder, så väljer jag att svara med dels en genomgång av vilka jesu bröder var, kopierat från catholic encyclopedia och dels hänvisa till bl a protoevangeliet enligt Jakob, som beskriver Marias uppväxt och omständigheterna kring trolovningen. Det står en del om protoevangeliet i den citerade texten nedan (vilket också kan tjäna till delförklaring till varför protoevangeliet inte blivit del av kanon). CHURCH FATHERS: Protoevangelium of James
Av protoevangeliet framgår dock tydligt att Josef var gammal då de trolovades och inte önskade ta Maria som trolovad (kap 9). Hur troligt detta är vet jag inte, men om det stämmer att det var Jakob, "Jesu bror", som låg bakom texten så torde åtminstone texten vara någorlunda trovärdig. Hursomhelst kan den ge ökad insikt om vad man trodde ca 100 år efter jesu död, även om en del fantastiska element infogats.
Texten talar också om judiska seder kring jungfrudom som jag inte känner närmare till, men stora delar av texten kretsar kring detta. Om någon annan kan kasta ljus över detta fenomen vore det spännande!
En annan sak som också framgår tydligt är att Josef inte förväntades förlösa Maria (kap19), vilket Haggaj antar. Jag tror det är helt otänkbart att Josef skulle varit med vid förlossningen, oavsett om Maria tänkt sig förbli jungfru eller ej, det var så vitt jag förstått helt otänkbart att mannen skulle förlösa kvinnan i deras kultur vid den tiden.
Slutligen en viktig poäng som tas upp i den citerade texten nedan är att Maria frågar ängeln hur hon skall kunna få barn. Det hade hon knappast gjort om hon tänkt sig att leva med Josef. Då hade den naturliga reaktionen varit att hon trott att Josef skulle komma att bli barnets far.
Jag länkar också till en disputation mellan Jerome och Helvidius angående Marie förblivande jungfrulighet. Den citerade texten nedan baseras delvis på det som Jerome skrivit. CHURCH FATHERS: The Perpetual Virginity of Mary (Jerome)
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: The Brethren of the Lord
The Brethren of the Lord
A group of persons closely connected with the Saviour appears repeatedly in the New Testament under the designation "his brethren" or "the brethren of the Lord" (Matthew 12:46, 13:55; Mark 3:31-32, 6:3; Luke 8:19-20; John 2:12, 7:3-5; Acts 1:14; 1 Corinthians 9:5). Four such "brethren" are mentioned by name in the parallel texts of Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3 (where "sisters" are also referred to), namely, James (also mentioned Galatians 1:19), Joseph, or Joses, Simon, and Jude; the incidental manner in which these names are given, shows, however, that the list lays no claim to completeness.
Two questions in connexion with these "brethren" of the Lord have long been, and are still now more than ever, the subject of controversy: (1) The identity of James, Jude, and Simon; (2) the exact nature of the relationship between the Saviour and his "brethren".
(1) The identity of James, Jude and Simon
James is without doubt the Bishop of Jerusalem (Acts 12:17, 15:13, 21:18; Galatians 1:19; 2:9-12) and the author of the first Catholic Epistle. His identity with James the Less (Mark 15:40) and the Apostle James, the son of Alpheus (Matthew 10:3; Mark 3:18), although contested by many Protestant critics, may also be considered as certain. There is no reasonable doubt that in Galatians 1:19: "But other of the apostles [besides Cephas] I saw none, saving James the brother of the Lord", St. Paul represents James as a member of the Apostolic college. The purpose for which the statement is made, makes it clear that the "apostles" is to be taken strictly to designate the Twelve, and its truthfulness demands that the clause "saving James" be understood to mean, that in addition to Cephas, St. Paul saw another Apostle, "James the brother of the Lord" (cf. Acts 9:27). Besides, the prominence and authority of James among the Apostles (Acts 15:13; Galatians 2:9; in the latter text he is even named before Cephas) could have belonged only to one of their number. Now there were only two Apostles named James: James the son of Zebedee, and James the son of Alpheus (Matthew 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:16; Acts 1:13). The former is out of the question, since he was dead at the time of the events to which Acts 15:6 ssq., and Galatians 2:9-12 refer (cf. Acts 12:2). James "the brother of the Lord" is therefore one with James the son of Alpheus, and consequently with James the Less, the identity of these two being generally conceded. Again, on comparing John 19:25 with Matthew 27:56, and Mark 15:40 (cf. Mark 15:47; 16:1), we find that Mary of Cleophas, or more correctly Clopas (Klopas), the sister of Mary the Mother of Christ, is the same as Mary the mother of James the Less and of Joseph, or Joses. As married women are not distinguished by the addition of their father's name, Mary of Clopas must be the wife of Clopas, and not his daughter, as has been maintained. Moreover, the names of her sons and the order in which they are given, no doubt the order of seniority, warrant us in identifying these sons with James and Joseph, or Joses, the "brethren" of the Lord. The existence among the early followers of Christ of two sets of brothers having the same names in the order of age, is not likely, and cannot be assumed without proof. Once this identity is conceded, the conclusion cannot well be avoided that Clopas and Alpheus are one person, even if the two names are quite distinct. It is, however, highly probable, and commonly admitted, that Clopas and Alpheus are merely different transcriptions of the same Aramaic word Halphai. James and Joseph the "brethren" of the Lord are thus the sons of Alpheus.
Of Joseph nothing further is known. Jude is the writer of the last of the Catholic Epistles (Jude 1). He is with good reason identified by Catholic commentators with the "Judas Jacobi" ("Jude the brother of James" in the Douay Version) of Luke 6:16 and Acts 1:13, otherwise known as Thaddeus (Matthew 10:3; Mark 3:18). It is quite in accordance with Greek custom for a man to be distinguished by the addition of his brother's name instead of his father's, when the brother was better known. That such was the case with Jude is inferred from the title "the brother of James", by which he designates himself in his Epistle. About Simon nothing certain can be stated. He is identified by most commentators with the Symeon, or Simon, who, according to Hegesippus, was a son of Clopas, and succeeded James as Bishop of Jerusalem. Some identify him with the Apostle Simon the Cananean (Matthew 10:4; Mark 3:18) or the Zealot (Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13). The grouping together of James, Jude or Thaddeus, and Simon, after the other Apostles, Judas Iscariot excepted, in the lists of the Apostles, (Matthew 10:4-5; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:16; Acts 1:13) lends some probability to this view, as it seems to indicate some sort of connexion between the three. Be this as it may, it is certain that at least two of the "brethren" of Christ were among the Apostles. This is clearly implied in 1 Cor 9:5: "Have we not the power to carry about a woman, a sister, as well as the rest of the apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?" The mention of Cephas at the end indicates that St. Paul, after speaking of the Apostles in general, calls special attention to the more prominent ones, the "brethren" of the Lord and Cephas. The objection that no "brethren" of the Lord could have been members of the Apostolic college, because six months before Christ's death they did not believe in Him (John 7:3-5), rests on a misunderstanding of the text. His "brethren" believed in his miraculous power, and urged him to manifest it to the world. Their unbelief was therefore relative. It was not a want of belief in His Messiahship, but a false conception of it. They had not yet rid themselves of the Jewish idea of a Messiah who would be a temporal ruler. We meet with this idea among the Apostles as late as the day of the Ascension (Acts 1:6). In any case the expression "his brethren" does not necessarily include each and every "brother", whenever it occurs. This last remark also sufficiently answers the difficulty in Acts 1:13-14, where, it is said, a clear distinction is made between the Apostles and the "brethren" of the Lord.
(2) The exact nature of the relationship between the Saviour and his "brethren"
The texts cited at the beginning of this article show beyond a doubt that there existed a real and near kinship between Jesus and His "brethren". But as "brethren" (or "brother") is applied to step-brothers as well as to brothers by blood, and in Scriptural, and Semitic use generally, is often loosely extended to all near, or even distant, relatives (Genesis 13:8, 14:14-16; Leviticus 10:4; 1 Chronicles 15:5-10, 23:21-22), the word furnishes no certain indication of the exact nature of the relationship. Some ancient heretics, like Helvidius and the Antidicomarianites, maintained that the "brethren" of Jesus were His uterine brothers the sons of Joseph and Mary. This opinion has been revived in modern times, and is now adopted by most of the Protestant exegetes. On the orthodox side two views have long been current. The majority of the Greek Fathers and Greek writers, influenced, it seems, by the legendary tales of apocryphal gospels, considered the "brethren" of the Lord as sons of St. Joseph by a first marriage. The Latins, on the contrary, with few exceptions (St. Ambrose, St. Hilary, and St. Gregory of Tours among the Fathers), hold that they were the Lord's cousins. That they were not the sons of Joseph and Mary is proved by the following reasons, leaving out of consideration the great antiquity of the belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary. It is highly significant that throughout the New Testament Mary appears as the Mother of Jesus and of Jesus alone. This is the more remarkable as she is repeatedly mentioned in connexion with her supposed sons, and, in some cases at least, it would have been quite natural to call them her sons (cf. Matthew 12:46; Mark 3:31; Luke 8:19; Acts 1:14). Again, Mary's annual pilgrimage to Jerusalem (Luke 2:41) is quite incredible, except on the supposition that she bore no other children besides Jesus. Is it likely that she could have made the journey regularly, at a time when the burden of child-bearing and the care of an increasing number of small children (she would be the mother of at least four other sons and of several daughters, cf Matthew 13:56) would be pressing heavily upon her? A further proof is the fact that at His death Jesus recommended His mother to St. John. Is not His solicitude for her in His dying hour a sign that she would be left with no one whose duty it would be to care for her? And why recommend her to an outsider if she had other sons? Since there was no estrangement between Him and His "brethren", or between them and Mary, no plausible argument is confirmed by the words with which he recommends her: ide ho uios sou, with the article before uios (son); had there been others sons, ide uios sou, without the article, would have been the proper expression.
The decisive proof, however, is that the father and mother of at least two of these "brethren" are known to us. James and Joseph, or Joses, are, as we have seen, the sons of Alpheus, or Clopas, and of Mary, the sister of Mary the Mother of Jesus, and all agree that if these are not brothers of the Saviour, the others are not. This last argument disposes also of the theory that the "brethren" of the Lord were the sons of St. Joseph by a former marriage. They are then neither the brothers nor the step-brothers of the Lord. James, Joseph, and Jude are undoubtedly His cousins. If Simon is the same as the Symeon of Hegesippus, he also is a cousin, since this writer expressly states that he was the son of Clopas the uncle of the Lord, and the latter's cousin. But whether they were cousins on their father's or mother's side, whether cousins by blood or merely by marriage, cannot be determined with certainty. Mary of Clopas is indeed called the "sister" of the Blessed Virgin (John 19:25), but it is uncertain whether "sister" here means a true sister or a sister-in-law. Hegesippus calls Clopas the brother of St. Joseph. This would favour the view that Mary of Clopas was only the sister-in-law of the Blessed Virgin, unless it be true, as stated in the manuscripts of the Peshitta version, that Joseph and Clopas married sisters. The relationship of the other "brethren" may have been more distant than that of the above named four.
The chief objection against the Catholic position is taken from Matt 1:25: "He [Joseph] knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son"; and from Luke 2:7: "And she brought forth her firstborn son". Hence, it is argued, Mary must have born other children. "Firstborn" (prototokos), however, does not necessarily connote that other children were born afterwards. This is evident from Luke 2:23, and Ex 13:2-12 (cf. Greek text) to which Luke refers. "Opening the womb" is there given as the equivalent of "firstborn" (prototokos). An only child was thus no less "firstborn" than the first of many. Neither do the words "he knew her not till she brought forth" imply, as St. Jerome proves conclusively against Helvidius from parallel examples, that he knew her afterwards. The meaning of both expressions becomes clear, if they are considered in connexion with the virginal birth related by the two Evangelists.
Perpetual virginity of Mary - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Technorati Tags: Jungfru Maria