Late Medieval And Reformation Sources On The Perpetual Virginity Of Mary

TurretinFan and Dan Chapa recently produced a video discussing the diversity of views of the perpetual virginity of Mary held by sources of the late medieval and Reformation eras. It draws on some of the material in my recent posts here, here, and here.

The Diversity Of Views Of The Perpetual Virginity Of Mary In The Late Medieval And Reformation Eras (Part 3)

One of the issues that sometimes comes up in discussions of Mary's perpetual virginity is the necessity of accepting the doctrine. Is acceptance of it a requirement for salvation? If somebody believes in the perpetual virginity of Mary, to what degree does he think opponents of the doctrine have erred? As my last post mentioned, a person could be agnostic about whether Mary was a perpetual virgin. And people who support the doctrine or oppose it can do so to a wide variety of degrees. Issues like these often get overlooked or underestimated, not just when considering the timeframes I'm focused on in these posts, but also more broadly.

The Diversity Of Views Of The Perpetual Virginity Of Mary In The Late Medieval And Reformation Eras (Part 2)

People have taken a lot of different positions on the perpetual virginity of Mary. A wide variety of views is found in the historical record during the timeframes I'm addressing. You could believe that Mary didn't have sexual intercourse, but reject her virginity in partu. You could believe in her perpetual virginity, yet not think that rejecting it makes somebody a non-Christian. You could affirm her perpetual virginity or oppose it to different degrees. You could be agnostic on the subject. And so on.

This post will discuss some examples of individuals who opposed the perpetual virginity of Mary. The next post will address sources who took other positions that are significant in one way or another.

The Diversity Of Views Of The Perpetual Virginity Of Mary In The Late Medieval And Reformation Eras (Part 1)

It's common for Roman Catholics and other critics of Protestantism to bring up support among the earliest Protestants for various Marian beliefs that are often rejected by Protestants today, like the perpetual virginity of Mary. Individuals like Martin Luther and Ulrich Zwingli will be cited in support of her perpetual virginity and other such beliefs about her. While it's true that the earliest Protestants were closer to groups like Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy on Marian issues than modern Protestants are, even the earliest Protestants substantially disagreed with those groups on some Marian issues. See the examples discussed here. And the early Protestants who accepted Mary's perpetual virginity sometimes disagreed with Catholics and other modern advocates of the perpetual virginity of Mary on some issues related to the doctrine, like whether she took a vow of virginity. In the coming days, I'm going to be discussing some late medieval and Reformation sources who were more distant from a traditional Catholic view on the perpetual virginity of Mary. What I want to do in this post is discuss some background issues that I think are helpful in framing the discussion.

I Agree With The Earliest Christians About The Perpetual Virginity Of Mary

When it comes to the perpetual virginity of Mary, do you agree with the Catholic view or with the view of Protestant reformers Martin Luther, Ulrich Zwingli, and John Wesley?

— Michael Knowles (@michaeljknowles) March 28, 2026

I agree with Matthew, Mark, Hegesippus, Irenaeus, and other early Christians who rejected the perpetual virginity of Mary. Much of the Biblical evidence against her perpetual virginity rarely gets discussed, such as what I address here and here. There were many Christians in early church history who didn't believe that Mary was a perpetual virgin, far more than just Tertullian and Helvidius. You can access an archive of our posts on the perpetual virginity of Mary here. Keep clicking Older Posts in the lower right to see more.

How Later Church Fathers Disagree With Earlier Ones

Sometimes a disagreement is more obvious, such as the comments of a later church father who explicitly refers to his disagreement with the premillennialism of Papias or Irenaeus. Other times, the disagreement is more subtle.

For example, I've written before about how Irenaeus compares Mary's virginity to the virginity of soil that was "as yet" virgin, but would later lose its virginity. Contrast his comments with those of Maximus of Turin, who wrote more than two centuries later, after the perpetual virginity of Mary had become more popular. I'll quote Irenaeus, then quote Maximus with emphasis added to highlight a difference:

"And as the protoplast himself Adam, had his substance from untilled and as yet virgin soil ('for God had not yet sent rain, and man had not tilled the ground'), and was formed by the hand of God, that is, by the Word of God, for 'all things were made by Him,' and the Lord took dust from the earth and formed man; so did He who is the Word, recapitulating Adam in Himself, rightly receive a birth, enabling Him to gather up Adam [into Himself], from Mary, who was as yet a virgin." (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3:21:10)

"For Adam was born of the virgin earth and Christ was begotten of the virgin Mary; the maternal soil of the one had not yet been broken by hoes, while the hidden place of the other's maternity was never violated by desire." (Maximus of Turin, Sermon 50A:2, Boniface Ramsey, trans., The Sermons Of St. Maximus Of Turin [Mahwah, New Jersey: Newman Press, 1989], 122)

Where Irenaeus sees a parallel, Maximus goes out of his way to describe a contrast. (And you can read my post on Irenaeus linked above for further evidence that he didn't think Mary was a perpetual virgin. For more about the larger historical context surrounding Irenaeus, in which we see other opponents of the perpetual virginity of Mary in many places for hundreds of years, see here, here, and here, for example.)

Chromatius On Opponents Of Mary's Perpetual Virginity

Chromatius of Aquileia, who lived in the fourth and fifth centuries, wrote:

"But concerning what the evangelist said, 'And he did not know her till she brought forth a son' [Matt 1:25], several foolish people are accustomed to stir up a question, thinking that after the Lord's birth saint Mary was united with Joseph." (Thomas Scheck, trans., Chromatius Of Aquileia: Sermons And Tractates On Matthew [Mahwah, New Jersey: The Newman Press, 2018], approximate Kindle location 3051)

Though Chromatius could be discussing opponents of Mary's perpetual virginity in general, he seems to be limiting his comments to the interpretation of Matthew 1:25 instead. Either way, his use of the term "several" is significant. There surely were some people who held the view in question with whom Chromatius wasn't familiar. So, the total number has to be higher than the several Chromatius refers to. And if he's only commenting on a particular interpretation of Matthew 1:25, then the total number who rejected the perpetual virginity of Mary, whether on the basis of Matthew 1:25 or on other grounds, must have been higher still. Advocates of the perpetual virginity of Mary often say or suggest that only one or two individuals or some other extremely small number denied her perpetual virginity before the Reformation (only Helvidius, only Tertullian and Helvidius, etc.). Chromatius' comment suggests the number was higher.

And we have far more than Chromatius' comment to go by. See here and here, for example for discussions of the evidence that many individuals rejected Mary's perpetual virginity for hundreds of years before the Reformation, beginning in the first century and continuing into the medieval era. Rejection of her perpetual virginity seems to have been the more popular view during the earliest generations of church history.

"Firstborn" In Luke 2:7 And The Alleged Perpetual Virginity Of Mary

From Gregory Lanier's new commentary on Luke:

"Also, because prōtotokos here [in Luke 2:7] is modified by 'her,' it registers at the human level and does not convey the transcendence of Rom 8: 29; Col 1: 15; and Heb 1: 6." (Christian Standard Commentary: Luke [B&H Publishing Group, 2025], approximate Kindle location 4693)

Luke uses "only begotten" elsewhere (7:12, 9:38). He could have used it in 2:7, which would have implied the prerogatives, honors, and such of the "firstborn" terminology without casting doubt on Mary's perpetual virginity. In a culture in which women normally have multiple children, like ancient Israel, a woman whose child is called "firstborn" is normally expected to go on to have others or thought to have had others already, and Luke's gospel refers to others if the gospel is interpreted in its most natural sense (8:19). To refer to a woman's child as "firstborn" when she may not have any other children, but is expected to have more, is different than referring to the child as "firstborn" when writing after you know there were no other children. You could do the latter, but it would be less natural. Even if a term takes on additional uses over time, you should ask what the best explanation is of how the term originated. That has implications for later usage. "Firstborn" makes the most sense as a term originating in a context involving multiple children. That likely was the original meaning and the usual meaning afterward, even though exceptions developed under some circumstances. The issue here is how we best explain the terminology, not how it might be interpreted.

What's the significance of something like baptismal regeneration or the perpetual virginity of Mary?

I've been posting a lot on both subjects lately, but people often dismiss such issues as insignificant. A recent post I wrote about baptismal regeneration focused on one of the reasons why that issue is important. And I linked another post that discusses thirteen problems with baptismal regeneration, which provides other reasons for considering the subject significant.

Another reason for thinking more highly of these issues is how they're connected to other topics. Whatever significance the perpetual virginity of Mary has when considered in isolation, it takes on more importance when you consider how it has implications for claims about church infallibility, papal authority, the nature of extrabiblical tradition, and so on. Similarly, something like whether Mary was assumed to heaven doesn't have a lot of significance in isolation, but it becomes more significant when it's attached to other things, like papal infallibility and the infallibility of one institution or another.

There's also the issue of Biblical precedent. Many of the arguments used to underestimate the significance of baptismal regeneration could also have been used to underestimate the significance of adding circumcision as a means of justification, for example. Yet, the apostles treated the adding of circumcision as a major issue. (They also applied that reasoning more broadly, since they refer at times to the broader subject of adding "works", "conditions", etc. They didn't think circumcision was the only thing that couldn't be added.) As I've argued elsewhere, Peter probably was criticizing the concept of baptismal regeneration in 1 Peter 3, which is why he framed things so similarly to how Josephus did when addressing that sort of misconception of baptism in the context of John the Baptist.

And an issue doesn't need to have maximal significance in order to have some. I do a lot of work on Christmas issues. There's some value to knowing whether Jesus had siblings, the nature of his relationships with those siblings, and so forth. Though those aren't foundational issues or highly significant in some other way, they do have some significance. It's the type of information people often look into when studying the background of any historical figure, writing biographies, etc. It's information that tells you something about how the person's character was shaped, what experiences he had in life, how reliable certain people are (like siblings) as witnesses of his life, and so on.

I'm not trying to be exhaustive. These are just some examples of reasons why these issues are important.

Does the unbelief of Jesus' brothers support Mary's perpetual virginity?

I recently heard somebody make that claim. If Jesus' brothers grew up in the same house as Jesus, which would have included having a large amount of information about or even witnessing miracles associated with him, for example, why weren't they believers?

That's just a variation of an objection that's been raised for a long time in other contexts. See my response to Raymond Brown's formulation of it here and here and my response to Bart Ehrman's version of it here, for instance. There's no reason to think there were as many or more miracles occurring in association with Jesus in his home prior to his public ministry than during that ministry. But his brothers were unbelievers during that latter timeframe. The typical non-Christian argument pertaining to Jesus' miracles at the time wasn't that there weren't any miracles, but rather that they didn't come from God. It wasn't an absence of miracles that was motivating the unbelief.

And though children of Joseph from a previous marriage and cousins would be further removed from Jesus than children born from Mary, we'd still expect children from a previous marriage and cousins to have had a lot of contact with Joseph, Mary, and Jesus. Look at how often they're in close proximity to Jesus and Mary in the gospels and elsewhere. That probably occurred prior to Jesus' public ministry as well. Just as there isn't much difficulty in reconciling the unbelief of Jesus' brothers with their being step-brothers or cousins, there isn't much difficulty in reconciling their unbelief with their being brothers in the most common sense of that term.

Distancing the brothers from Jesus makes their unbelief less difficult to explain in some ways, but not in every context. If the brothers were children from a previous marriage, then they lived through the events of the infancy narratives, as Joseph and Mary did. By contrast, children later born from Mary didn't. Children from a previous marriage also would have been more mature during Jesus' childhood, more capable of handling evidential contexts like having conversations with Joseph and Mary about the relevant issues. In some ways, the unbelief of Jesus' brothers is easier to explain if they were children born from Mary after Jesus' birth or cousins born later rather than earlier.

Even if somebody concludes that a perpetual virginity scenario offers a better explanation of the brothers' unbelief, I don't think it would be much of an advantage. As I said in an earlier post, an advantage for a particular view of the brothers in one context can be accompanied by a disadvantage in another context. What we're after is the best explanation of the evidence as a whole. As the post just linked argues, the view that Mary gave birth to other children is the most efficient explanation on balance, even though it's not the best explanation of every piece of evidence. A Joseph who was older at the time of his marriage to Mary better explains his death prior to Jesus' public ministry, and the perpetual virginity view was held by more of the church fathers, for example, but the advantages of a perpetual virginity view are accompanied by more numerous and weightier disadvantages.

What if the brothers of Jesus were younger cousins?

My last post discussed some evidence for the consistency and historicity of what the New Testament reports about the siblings of Jesus. That material is relevant to the issue of whether Mary was a perpetual virgin, but that wasn't the focus of my last post. I do want to focus on it here and expand on what I said earlier.

Some Agreements Among The New Testament Documents About Jesus' Siblings

I've been discussing the perpetual virginity of Mary in some of my recent posts, and one of the issues I've brought up is how often Jesus' brothers are referred to as being together (Matthew 12:46, John 2:12, 7:3, 7:10, Acts 1:14). I think they probably were Jesus' youngest siblings, born well after him (with his sisters and any brothers who didn't survive born earlier), and were still living in the same house after Jesus left. They probably were in their teens to twenties at the time of Jesus' public ministry, with the oldest brother (likely James) having taken over the leadership role Jesus had in the home after Joseph's death. Since Jesus' brothers were still in the same house, they often did things together. The sisters of Jesus are consistently not mentioned in these contexts, even though they are mentioned elsewhere (Matthew 13:56, Mark 6:3). They probably had moved out of the house, whereas Jesus' brothers were still there.

But whatever reason you'd propose for why they're together so often, and whatever view you hold of the perpetual virginity of Mary, the fact remains that the brothers are often referred to as being active together. Later on, the brothers are referred to as being active individually, later in Acts and in Galatians and the letters of James and Jude. The contrast between their acting together earlier and acting individually later can be seen within a single author in the case of Luke. He refers to the brothers' acting together (Luke 8:19, Acts 1:14), but refers to James' acting individually in later passages in Acts. This is another line of evidence for the historicity of the gospels and other parts of the New Testament. The gospels and the opening of Acts all agree that the brothers were active together, with the sisters not being mentioned in those contexts, and the parts of the New Testament discussing later history agree in portraying the brothers as being active in a more individual manner.

One way to appreciate the value of such agreements is to think of how easily the sources could have disagreed. Why agree that Jesus had any brothers? Or more than one? Or that they acted together so often during the timeframe the gospels and Acts 1 cover? Or that they were more individually active later? The sources could easily have been less harmonious and probably would have been if the New Testament were as unhistorical as critics sometimes suggest.

The Suspicious Early Silence About Later Marian Dogmas

In a recent post, I discussed some of the evidence against concepts like Mary's perpetual virginity, sinlessness, and assumption. Something to keep in mind when issues like those come up is that the lack of reference to those beliefs among the earliest sources carries some evidential weight against them. Think of the writings of Luke, for example. He wrote the longest gospel we have, said the most about Mary among the earliest Christians, and gave us our earliest church history. That church history doesn't end until the early 60s. Not only does he say nothing of concepts like Mary's perpetual virginity, sinlessness, assumption, praying to individuals like Mary, venerating images of such people, etc., but he even repeatedly uses language that most naturally suggests that he opposed some of those concepts. See here for a discussion of some examples. Or see here for many other examples of early opposition to later Marian beliefs and practices. My main point here, though, is that we should keep in mind that there's a double problem for the advocate of something like a modern Roman Catholic or modern Eastern Orthodox view of Mary. There's a suspicious lack of reference to their view, a view they claim to be so important, accompanied by so many apparent contradictions of it. And that's in a context in which they claim to belong to the one true church founded by Jesus, passing on all apostolic teaching in unbroken succession throughout church history, providing unity, providing doctrinal clarity, etc.

An Easy Way To Date Opposition To Mary's Perpetual Virginity Before Helvidius

Advocates of the perpetual virginity of Mary sometimes acknowledge that there was opposition to the concept before Helvidius. They'll sometimes acknowledge that Tertullian didn't think Mary was a perpetual virgin, for example. However, some of them claim that Helvidius was the first source we know of who held that view. What I want to do in this post is discuss a line of evidence that can be brought up against that claim, some evidence that they'll likely accept more easily than they'd accept an argument that somebody like Luke or Irenaeus denied Mary's perpetual virginity.

Are Protestants underestimating Mary?

Ben Merritt of Cleave to Antiquity recently produced a video in which he interviewed an eyewitness of the Zeitoun Marian apparitions and concluded that he accepts the apparitions as appearances of Mary. In the comments section, Sean Luke of Anglican Aesthetics said that he holds a similar view. Other commenters also said that they're Protestant and accept the apparitions as appearances of Mary. In another recent video, Myles Christian of Canon & Creed provided "a historical survey of giants in Protestant history who held Mary in high esteem". He cites their belief in concepts like Mary's perpetual virginity, her becoming sinless after conception, and her assumption. Elsewhere in the video, he refers to a problem with Protestants "overcorrecting" errors about Mary. He asks at another point, "Are we possibly missing something that they [earlier Protestants] saw from scripture?" One portion of the video refers to an argument for Mary's assumption based on fetal microchimerism, but doesn't explain how it allegedly leads to the conclusion that Mary was assumed. He ends the video by commenting, "But if men like the reformers, who were radically committed to sola scriptura, sola fide, and the purity of the gospel, if they could hold Mary in high esteem without compromising their convictions, then maybe we can too."

A Patristic Belief Isn't A Patristic Priority

I've often discussed examples of how critics of Protestantism, such as Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, disagree with the church fathers and other pre-Reformation sources on various issues. See here for a collection of many examples. Something else to keep in mind is how often critics of Protestantism agree with certain pre-Reformation sources about a particular issue, yet disagree with their assessment of the issue's significance. The fact that a church father believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary, for example, doesn't mean he thought the issue has the significance assigned to it by modern proponents of the doctrine. See the examples discussed here and here.

The fact that a source held a belief doesn't tell you how he prioritized it. We need to keep that distinction in mind. And since Catholics and Orthodox often disagree with patristic priorities (and medieval priorities), they should allow some Protestant disagreement with those sources as well. Given that Protestants make lower claims about the sources in question, we should go further by adding that Protestant disagreements with the priorities of such sources is generally less problematic.

How Early Activities, Not Just Early Language, Contradict Mary's Perpetual Virginity

Some of the evidence against Mary's perpetual virginity is linguistic, but not all of it is. I want to provide an overview of that fact, an overview that will respond to the concept of perpetual virginity in general. The applicability of each point I'll make will depend on which view of perpetual virginity somebody holds. I'm not suggesting that each point is equally applicable to every view of Mary's perpetual virginity.

Why do so many early sources say nothing about Mary's perpetual virginity while suggesting they rejected it?

Tom Schmidt recently published a book arguing for the authenticity and significance of Josephus' material on Christianity. I've written some posts in recent years about the importance of what Josephus tells us about the baptism of John the Baptist. And Schmidt's book reminded me of the significance of Josephus' comments on James' relationship with Jesus as it pertains to the perpetual virginity of Mary.

Think of how many sources in the earliest centuries address issues relevant to Mary's alleged perpetual virginity and not only don't affirm her perpetual virginity, but even use language that's most naturally taken to contradict it: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Josephus, Hegesippus, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Hippolytus. Those are just the sources in the earliest generations of church history. There was ongoing opposition to Mary's perpetual virginity well after the concept became popular in later centuries. The opposition continued into the medieval era. In the earliest generations, the belief that Mary gave birth to other children after Jesus seems to have been the dominant view. Josephus, like the other earliest sources, knew of other language he could have used and did use such language in other contexts ("relative", "cousin", etc.). Think of the cumulative effect of Josephus and the other sources involved. It's highly unlikely that so many early sources would believe in Mary's perpetual virginity, yet not only not refer to it, but even use language that seems to contradict the concept (multiple terms in multiple contexts and multiple types of contexts).

Bede On Opponents Of Mary's Perpetual Virginity

I've written before about how opposition to the perpetual virginity of Mary persisted beyond the earliest centuries, into the late patristic and early medieval eras. Bede, writing in the eighth century, uses the present tense to refer to opponents of the perpetual virginity of Mary:

James and John, not full biological brothers?

The late Roman Catholic scholar John Meier made a good point about the perpetual virginity of Mary that should be brought up more often. What's our initial impression when the terminology that's applied to Jesus is applied to other individuals? When the New Testament refers to James and John, the sons of Zebedee, as brothers, what's our initial impression about their relationship? That they're full biological siblings. Most likely, we retain that initial impression for the rest of our lives, unless we encounter overriding evidence. Terminology is sometimes applied in unusual ways. The term "son" can refer to an adoptive rather than biological relationship, for example, but that doesn't prevent us from recognizing that the biological meaning is more common. The New Testament qualifies Jesus' familial relationships with the virgin birth, but it never qualifies those relationships with something involving perpetual virginity on Mary's part. The absence of any effort to provide such a qualifier by so many authors across so many contexts is significant. My main point here, though, is that advocates of the perpetual virginity of Mary need to provide an overriding justification for interpreting the terminology the way they do. The way we interpret the relationship between James and John is an illustration of that.