In my post yesterday I made an off-the-cuff reference to the Catholic doctrine that Mary was a “perpetual virgin,” and indicated I’d explain more about that and related issues in a later post. This is the post!
When talking about the births of both Mary and Jesus (and related topics involving sex and conception) there are a number of terms that are often confused (especially, but not only, by those who are/have been most connected to Christianity through the Protestant tradition).
- Immaculate Conception. This doctrine is *not* about Jesus’ mother conceiving as a virgin; it is about Mary’s *own* mother and how she conceived Mary. Mary, in Roman Catholic thinking, did not have a sin nature. Otherwise she would have passed it along to Jesus. But how could Mary not have one, if she were born and raised like every other human? The answer came in the medieval notion of the immaculate conception: Mary herself was conceived (by her mother Anna) miraculously: God did a miracle so that even though Mary was conceived through the sex act, she was not given a sin nature.
- Virginal conception. This is actually the view of Matthew and Luke, that Jesus’ mother *conceived* without having sex. It is not the same thing as the term “virgin birth” even though people (including scholars) (including me) often use a “short hand description of the “virgin birth” stories of Matthew and Luke. That’s probably confusing short hand because…:
- Virgin birth. Technically speaking, this refers to Mary giving birth while still a virgin. In other words, she not only conceived without sex, but her hymen remained intact even after giving birth. This was the later view of church fathers and can be found early on in the intriguing book called the Proto-Gospel of James.
- Perpetual virginity of Mary. This was the view that Mary never had sex, to the end of her life. This became the standard view in Roman Catholic circles. Mary was without a sin nature (because of the Immaculate Conception), and never was involved in sin in any way, including passing on a sin nature to others by giving them birth (the sin nature is given a child at conception during the sex act).
But if Mary was a perpetual virgin, then why is that — as I pointed out in yesterday’s post — Jesus said to have brothers and sisters in the New Testament (Mark 6:3; see also John 7:3)? This was the ONE issue that my students at Rutgers – who were largely Roman Catholic – had problems with when I taught NT there. Unlike my evangelical protestant students at UNC, who had no problem with Jesus’ mother having other children, but who couldn’t stand (many of them) the idea that the Bible could have mistakes in it, my Rutgers students would often go ballistic if I claimed that Jesus had siblings.
Here is what I say about the Catholic view of Jesus’ “brothers” in my book Did Jesus Exist?
******************************
As a side note I should point out that the Roman Catholic Church has for many centuries insisted that Jesus did not actually have brothers. That does not mean that the church denied that James and the other brothers of Jesus existed, or that they were unusually closely related to Jesus. But in the Roman Catholic view Jesus’ brothers were not related to Jesus by blood, because they were not the children of his mother Mary. The reasons the Catholic Church put forth for claiming this, however, were not historical or based on a close examination of the New Testament texts. Instead, the reasoning involved a peculiar doctrine that had developed in the Catholic church, dating all the way back to the fourth Christian century. In traditional catholic dogma, Mary, the mother of Jesus, was not simply a virgin when Jesus was born, but she remained a virgin until the end of her days. This is the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary.
In no small measure this doctrine is rooted in the view that sexual relations necessarily involve sinful activities. Mary, however, according to Catholic doctrine, did not have a sin nature. She could not have had, otherwise she would have passed it along to Jesus when he was born. She was herself conceived without the stain of original sin: the doctrine of the “immaculate conception.” And since she did not have a sin nature, she was not involved in any sinful activities, including sex. That is why, at the end of her life, rather than dying, Mary was taken up into heaven. This is the doctrine of the assumption of the virgin.
Protestants have long claimed that none of these doctrines about Mary is actually rooted in Scripture, and from a historians’ point of view, I have to say that I think they are right. These are theological views driven by theological concerns that have nothing to do with the earliest traditions about Jesus and his family. But if, for Roman Catholics, Mary was a perpetual virgin, and never had sex, who exactly were the so-called “brothers” of Jesus?
There were two views of the matter that Catholic thinkers developed, one of which became standard. In the older of the two views, the “brothers” of Jesus were the sons of Joseph from a previous marriage. This made them, in effect, Jesus’ step-brothers. This view can be found in later apocryphal stories about Jesus’ birth, where we are told that Joseph was a very old man when he became betrothed to Mary. Presumably that is one of the reasons they never had sex; Joseph was too old. This perspective continued to exert its influence on Catholic thinkers for centuries. You may have noticed that in all those medieval paintings of Jesus’ nativity, Joseph is portrayed as quite elderly, as opposed to Mary, in the blossom of youth. This is why. I should stress that even if this view were historically right – there is not single piece of reliable evidence for it – James still would have been unusually closely related to Jesus.
Eventually this view came to be displaced however, and in no small measure because of the powerful influence of the fourth-century church father Jerome. Jerome was an ascetic himself, among other things, denying himself the pleasures of sex. He thought that the superior form of Christian life for everyone involved asceticism. But surely he was no more ascetic than the close relatives of Jesus. For Jerome, this means that not only Jesus’ mother but also his father (who was not really his father, except by adoption) were ascetics as well. Even Joseph never had sex. But that obviously means he could not have children from a previous marriage, and so the brothers of Jesus were not related to Joseph. They were Jesus’ cousins.
The main problem with this view is that when the New Testament talks about Jesus’ brothers, it uses the Greek word that literally refers to a male sibling. There is a different Greek word for cousin. This other word is not used of James and the others. A plain and straightforward reading of the texts in the Gospels and in Paul leads to an unambiguous result: these “brothers” of Jesus were his actual siblings. Since neither Mark (which first mentions Jesus having four brothers and several sisters; 6:3) nor Paul gives any indication at all of knowing anything about Jesus being born of a virgin, the most natural assumption is that they both thought that Jesus’ parents were his real parents. They had sexual relations, and Jesus was born. And then (later?) came other children to the happy couple. And so Jesus’ brothers were his actual brothers.
[/mepr-show]
Dr. Ehrman,
All this virgin nonsense stems from the Septuagint’s “a virgin will give birth” silliness, correct?
Yes, the entire tradition stems from Matthew’s quotation of Isaiah 7:14.
Thank you, Dr Ehrman. This is a fascinating post for me as I attend a Catholic Church (my wife is Catholic). I have discussed this subject with many Catholics and the more liberal, feminist inclined ones (who dislike the Church’s prohibition on women’s ordination) tend to agree with you. However, it was once suggested to me by a more conservative Catholic that my immortal soul could be in danger for suggesting that Mary and Joseph had children after Jesus. Oh well, that’s me done for 😉.
As regards Jerome, I think I read somewhere that he claimed that the Greek work for brother (adelphos) could also mean cousin in some Mediterranean cultures. I know few other people spoke Greek in the West at that time and it probably is true that ‘brother’ can be used in a wider sense sometimes but surely there have to be times when brother actually means brother. Jerome never tried to argue that Peter and Andrew were cousins rather than brothers, or James and John, the sons of Zebedee.
There is something about this theology that makes people think that there is something wrong with the male contribution to procreation.
Of course, there is something wrong with the female doing procreation with a male as well, but still, she contributes, and that contribution (9 months and childbirth) ends up being good and positive, at least in the case of Jesus.
I don’t think this really gives people a healthy outlook on themselves, other people, or the human race.
Isn’t religion supposed to give people a healthy outlook on themselves, others, and life as well?
If people can’t love themselves, how are they supposed to love their neighbors as themselves, when they can’t or aren’t allowed to love themselves?
And then there’s the theology of Original Sin, under which everybody, even infants, is tainted by sin. Not exactly a positive view of human nature, and it still affects the Western psyche.
Hmmm, very interesting historical perspective for both sides. And the truth shall set you free…
I had always assumed that the perpetual virginity of Mary was largely a product of Roman Catholic dogma, and that the reference to the siblings of Jesus in the New Testament suggested that theologians should not have ventured down this path. I was therefore surprised to run across a summary of a talk that Helen Bond will give at this fall’s Bible and Archaeology Fest:
Was Mary of Nazareth Joseph’s Second Wife?
“The gospels suggest that Jesus came from a large family, consisting of five sons and at least two daughters. Comparison with Egyptian census returns, however, suggests that such a large family would be extremely rare at the time. Given high mortality rates and the frequency of multiple marriages, it will be proposed that Jesus came from a typically “blended” family in which Mary was the second (or subsequent) wife of Joseph, and that the brothers and sisters listed by the gospels were a range of step- and half-siblings.”
Who knows if Ms. Bond will discuss the precise issue of Mary’s perpetual virginity, but this summary seems to indicate that even outside Catholic thought, the idea that Jesus’ brothers were step-brothers is not regarded as far-fetched.
Sounds interesting and … innovative! It will take a good bit of arguing to sustain it, but Helen Bond is a bright and insightful scholar. Still, I’m not sure how Egyptian censuses can be of much use in determining demographics in rural Galilean villages.
sms: I JUST read mary mother of jesus was not a virgin when she married joseph.
that hit me
Sunday, September 13 2026, 8:56 PM.
Ken 8:57 PM
You read wrong!
Message from you:
new theory, after all no original copies & thousands of copies, Monday, September 14 2026, 5:34 AM.
after all no original copies & thousands of copies
Message from Ken: By who and source. This book is B.S.!,
9:10 AM
Message from you:
bart ehrman comment. bible is not historical. i never believed st paul, i felt he was smartest in the room. look how he pushed out barnabas
Message from Ken:
Erhman does not deserve your time. Speaking nonsense just trying to get attention.
I guess I’m a bit surprized that the Early Imperial Church took such a firm stand on the perpetual virgin thing. The original virgin concept was originally driven by the obsession with engineering the Jesus narrative to comply with Jewish Messianic prophesy. The virgin thing was a part of the effort to align with Isaiah 7:14. That desire, along with the Davidic genaeology campaign and several other Prophesy friendly features seemed to lose relevance after the Roman destruction of Jerusalem. The religion was free to become more authentic and could disregard the Jewish friendly theological trappings. Instead, it chose to continue catering to various Jewish messianic expectations.
I’m not sure perpetual virginity is connected to Jewish theological views; it seems to have arisen as an attempt to explain how it was actually possible for Jesus to be an actual human BUT never to have sinned. Didn’t have a sin nature!
Hi Dr. Ehrman,
The Catholic teaching of the immaculate conception of Mary seems like an unnecessary step to me. Why not instead simply have an immaculate conception occur with Jesus’ own conception to avoid inheriting the sin nature? He was supposedly conceived as the result of one miracle – seems like a second miracle at the same time would be no big deal.
Plus, it seems like that would eliminate the need (from a Catholic perspective) to explain away the existence of Jesus’ siblings, as Mary would have had a sin nature and would not have needed to remain a virgin.
I second those thoughts.
One thing that gets raised when I talk with some family members who are Catholic is Matthew 27:56 and John 19:25 describing “Mary the mother of James and Joseph” standing near the cross. This other Mary is identified as the wife of Clopas (or Alphaeus) and therefore it proves that James and Joseph had a different mother, not the Virgin. I’m embarrassed to say I’m not sure how to dialogue with them about this due to my own ignorance. What are your thoughts about this line of argument? I’m sure you have heard it many times before. Love the blog! Thanks for all you do!
For openers I’d say that it’s not clear that Matthew and John are describing the same women, apart from both of them having Mary Magdalene there. “Mary” was a common name, as was James and Joseph.
Paul never mentions the virgin birth, even when he talks about Jesus’ birth or who Jesus was. Did Paul simply not know about it, or did he know and not consider it important enough to mention? Mark doesn’t mention it either. Why do you think something so important to Jesus’ story is completely absent from Paul’s letters unless it wasn’t something brought up until after Paul’s death?
How likely is it that the story of Jesus being born to a virgin wasn’t known to the people who knew him during his lifetime? If Mary and those closest to Jesus knew his birth to be miraculous, wouldn’t we expect that story to have been widely known? And if it wasn’t widely known, doesn’t that suggest the virgin birth idea came about after the first century?
My guess is that neither Paul nor Mark had ever heard of it. It first shows up in Matthew, who may well have invented it for the occasion, or else he heard of it from someone else. If they had heard of it, they surely would have mentoined it. I suspect it was not “known” until about 75-80 years after Jesus birth.
Ex-Catholic here. I remember in 1996 when John Paul II reaffirmed Mary as “ever virgin” (aeiparthenos) at a general audience.
Meanwhile, information about childhood sex abuse by priests was just starting to come out…but hey, let’s focus on Mary’s hymen.
I think the perpetual virginity of Mary, and her “holy” pregnancy, are inventions of the 2nd century CE. The Gospels narratives of Jesus birth in Bethlehem in Matthew and Luke and the proto-evangelion of James are stories fabricated by Greek/Roman Christians, when the Jerusalem Church had moved to Pella and had no influence on the development of Christianity. They “knew” that Jesus was the natural son of Joseph and Mary. I find probable that Jesus was their only son. I think much less probable, to invent those stories about a matron, mother of 8 children. One branch of the Ebionites, the Nazarenes, adopted the virginity of Mary. It become Orthodoxy.
I have always questioned Catholicism’s loud proclamation of “The Holy Family” starring Mary, Joseph, and Jesus when in fact Joesph was supernaturally cuckolded by the Holy Spirit. Someone has to explain how the sperm fertilized Mary’s egg and where the sperm physically came from- how it crossed the boundary between the spiritual world and the physical world and what was its DNA makeup. Simply declaring it a miracle is playing God-of-the-gaps. I suppose you could skip the sperm part and invoke God-of-the-gaps.