The word often argued over, "until" IN Matthew 1:25 is a mistranslation of "eos." From Dr Christopher Samuel:
You'll appreciate that my comments so far are based on the statements
of standard commentaries, all protestant, even evangelical, of
course, and not on my own research. I readily admit that I don't have
the feel for Greek that I think I am beginning to have for Hebrew.
None of the sources to which I have access give detailed discussion
with examples, but a couple of them do cite an earlier commentary on
Matthew by McNeile, published in 1915.
It might help to clarify what is actually being claimed by each
party. Your correspondent appears to be claiming that 'not A until B'
precludes 'A after B'. He also seems to be assuming that the
so-called protestant position is that 'not A until B' requires 'A
after B'. That is not quite the case. All I would claim is that 'not
A until B' permits 'A after B'.
If that is the case, then this verse does not address the alleged
perpetual virginity of Mary and that issue has to be decided on other
grounds such as the normal practice in Jewish marriages and the
references to Jesus' brothers and sisters. Those can of course be
interpreted differently, but it would seem to me that their most
natural interpretation, in the absence of biblical or theological
evidence to the contrary, is that, after the birth of Jesus, Joseph
and Mary had normal marital sex and that other children resulted from it.
It may be that a proper study of the implications of the heos hou
construction has already been published, perhaps in the McNeile
commentary, but I have neither the tools nor the expertise necessary
to do it. It would take a wide study of the construction, matching as
far as possible such factors as the type of Greek - Hellenistic
rather than classical - and time frame - past tense rather than
future - and otehr syntactic factors. It might also be better to
avoid translation Greek such as the LXX.
A key factor to be matched would be that the A clause must be negated
if it is to be relevant. Thus your correspondents examples #2 (Psa
109:1, LXX) and #3 (Matt 28:20) do not meet this criterion. The
others, #1 (Gen 8:7) and #4 (2Sa 6:23), do so, but the syntactic
match is less than ideal; in Gen 8:7 the B clause is the genitive of
an articular infinitive and in 2Sa 6:23 heos is functioning as a
preposition governing a noun phrase and not as a conjunction at all.
As I said, I lack the feel for Greek to know whether that is significant.
A quick search of the NT has show some counter-examples, but none of
them has an exact syntactic match that I would like to see:
John 13:38 the cock did crow after Peter disowned Jesus
Luke 22:18 I would assume that Jesus expected to drink
wine after the kingdom comes, at least at the wedding feast of the lamb
Acts 23:12, 14, 21 presumably those who made the vow intended to
eat and drink after killing Paul
As I said, none of these is ideal because they relate to a future
time frame. A few such examples, however, would suffice to establish
the claim that 'not A until B' does not preclude 'A after B' and it
is a small step to claiming that 'not A until B' permits 'A after B'.