Edition Masquer
De Virginitate B. Mariae

12.

Hieronymus.—Haec idcirco replicavimus, ne calumnietur et clamitet, ea quae pro se faciant, a nobis esse subtracta, et sententiam suam, non testimoniis Scripturarum, sed lubrica disputatione convulsam. "Ecce, inquit, Jacobus et Joseph filii Mariae, iidem quos Judaei fratres appellaverunt. Ecce Maria Jacobi minoris et Josetis mater. Minoris autem Jacobi, ad distinctionem majoris, qui erat filius Zebedaei, sicut et in alio loco Marcus ponit: Maria autem Magdalene, et Maria Jacobi, et Josetis, viderunt ubi poneretur: et transacto sabbato, emerunt aromata, et venerunt ad monumentum. Et utique ait: Quam miserum erit et impium de Maria hoc sentire, ut cum aliae feminae curam sepulturae Jesu habuerint, matrem ejus dicamus absentem: aut alteram esse Mariam, nescio quam, confingamus: praesertim cum Evangelium Joannis testetur praesentem eam illic fuisse, quando illam de cruce Dominus jam viduam, ut matrem Joanni commendabat. Aut numquid Evangelistae et falluntur et fallunt, ut eorum Mariam matrem dicerent, quos Judaei fratres Jesu esse dixerunt?"

Traduction Masquer
The Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary

14.

My reason for repeating the same thing again and again is to prevent him from raising a false issue and crying out that I have withheld such passages as make for him, and that his view has been torn to shreds not by evidence of Scripture, but by evasive arguments. Observe, he says, James and Joses are sons of Mary, and the same persons who were called brethren by the Jews. Observe, Mary is the mother of James the less and of Joses. And James is called the less to distinguish him from James the greater, who was the son of Zebedee, as Mark elsewhere states, ¹“And Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses beheld where he was laid. And when the sabbath was past, they bought spices, that they might come and anoint him.” And, as might be expected, he says: “What a poor and impious view we take of Mary, if we hold that when other women were concerned about the burial of Jesus, she His mother was absent; or if we invent some kind of a second Mary; and all the more because the Gospel of S. John testifies that she was there present, when the Lord upon the cross commended her, as His mother and now a widow, to the care of John. Or must we suppose that the Evangelists were so far mistaken and so far mislead us as to call Mary the mother of those who were known to the Jews as brethren of Jesus?”