Matthew can be absolutely crystal clear when he (whoever he actually was) wants to be. Could it be, in this instance, that he is being intentionally coy and ambiguous? Reading between the lines, might he be expressing the view that what went on, in private, between two consenting adults, whom he says, as a matter of fact, were married to each other, is firstly, none of our business and secondly, not very relevant to the more important story he wants to tell?

I mean, let's be serious, even if he wanted to be absolutely crystal clear on the point, how would anyone ever come to be certain about such things without having been in the room watching? Considering the dubious historicity of the entire event (I almost wrote 'affair'), to whom does it really matter but the faithful for whom reasoned scholarly discourse can never trump the authority of their sacred scripture?

Just a thought. Several actually.

Richard J Legault

On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 10:54 AM, Jaye Procure <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture
And I see Richard already covered what I said about "until"! Apologies.

Jaye

On 2015-03-20 10:51 AM, "Jaye Procure" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
You also have to watch the scriptural use of the word "until". It doesn't necessarily imply that the situation changed afterward. In the Hebrew scripture, a woman (and brainfog is preventing me from recalling who) was said to have had no children until she died. She certainly didn't have them after she died.

Even in modern context we sometimes can say something like "Farewell, until we meet again" which is not to imply that the good wishes end when we next meet.

Jaye

On 2015-03-20 9:04 AM, "Robert Kirby" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture

>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Gordon Plumb" <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Sent: Friday, March 20, 2015 4:51:42 AM
>Subject: Re: [M-R] St Joseph, husband of the BVM
>medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture
>The gospel of Matthew tells us that Joseph, following the angelic dream " took
>her as his wife, but he had no marital relations with her until she had born a
>son." The presumption must be that, at least in the understanding of the author of Matthew, they thereafter had a normal sexual relationship (and presumably children?).

I'm not entirely sure that follows, does it? If I say that my father and I quarreled on my thirteenth birthday, and that we spoke no more until I moved out of his house, does it follow that thereafter we had a normal family relationship? Or is the implication that, having not spoken when we were together, we certainly didn't speak when we were apart? I don't know.
Robert Kirby

**********************************************************************
To join the list, send the message: subscribe medieval-religion YOUR NAME
to: [log in to unmask]
To send a message to the list, address it to:
[log in to unmask]
To leave the list, send the message: unsubscribe medieval-religion
to: [log in to unmask]
In order to report problems or to contact the list's owners, write to:
[log in to unmask]
For further information, visit our web site:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/medieval-religion

********************************************************************** To join the list, send the message: subscribe medieval-religion YOUR NAME to: [log in to unmask] To send a message to the list, address it to: [log in to unmask] To leave the list, send the message: unsubscribe medieval-religion to: [log in to unmask] In order to report problems or to contact the list's owners, write to: [log in to unmask] For further information, visit our web site: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/medieval-religion