Sam Shamoun and William Albrecht are caught mis-understanding the argument that Dr. James White was making about Jerome’s reason and argumentation for the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. They accuse Dr. White of lying, thereby slandering him. All Dr. White was saying was that Jerome’s argument for “brothers of the Lord” meant “cousins”, and that that (the cousin argument for brother) was a new argument or position. Dr. White was not saying that there was not belief in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary at all before Jerome. Dr. White even documented that in his book,
“Mary, Another Redeemer? (1998) Before Jerome, the argument was that Joseph was a widower and his first wife died, and so the “brothers and sisters of the Lord” in the gospels (Matthew 12:46-50; 13:55; Mark 3:31-35, 6:3; Luke 8:19-21; John 2:12; John 7:3-5) are sons and daughters of Joseph by a previous marriage. (not cousins, as Jerome claims)
See the 3 videos later below for the video that Shamoun and Albrecht responded to, their own video (full of Sam’s typical anger, bellicosity, vitriol and ad hominem), and Javier Perdomo’s video, and his two written articles (see links below) demonstrating that Shamoun and Albrecht are wrong.
The five main earlier (than Jerome) writings on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, that make the argument that Joseph was a widower and had children by a previous marriage are below. There are others probably, but this covers the main ones.
- The Apocryphal Proto-Evangelium of James, around 150 AD.
- Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, around 198 AD.
- Origen, around 249 AD, but who based his information on the Proto-Evangelium of James
- Hilary of Poitiers, around 354 AD.
- Epiphanius of Salamis, Cyprus, around 375 AD
Notice Origen bases his belief in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary on the Proto-Evangelium of James, which was an apocryphal document that had elements of Gnosticism in it, probably written around 150 AD.
But some say, basing it on a tradition in the Gospel according to Peter, as it is called, or “The Book [Protoevangelium] of James,” that the brothers of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honor of Mary in virginity to the end, so that her body, which was appointed to minister to the Word, which said, “The Holy Spirit shall come upon you, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow you” [Lk 1:35], might not know intercourse with a man after the Holy Spirit came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it reasonable that Jesus was the first fruit among men of the purity that consists in chastity, and Mary among women; for it is not pious to ascribe to any other than her the first fruit of virginity.
Origen, Commentary on Matthew 10:17 (249 AD)
Catholic Answers, an apologetic ministry defending Roman Catholicism, writes:
Thus, according to the Protoevangelium, Joseph, an elderly widower who already had children, was chosen to be her spouse. (This would also explain why Joseph was apparently dead by the time of Jesus’ adult ministry, since he does not appear during it in the gospels, and since Mary is entrusted to John, rather than to her husband Joseph, at the crucifixion).
https://www.catholic.com/tract/mary-ever-virgin
They also quote from the apocyphal and Gnostic Proto-Evangelium of James:
This document is Gnostic because it claims baby Jesus just beamed out of Mary, without going through the birth canal and breaking her hymen, implying that there is something wrong with a natural human birth through the birth canal of a mother. This idea denigrates the real humanity of the birth process and the humanity of Jesus (although the Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox churches do not deny Jesus is fully human.) (paragraph 19-20, see below*, after the quotes from church fathers.)
“. . . he prayed concerning her, and behold, an angel of the Lord stood by him saying, ‘Zechariah! Zechariah! Go out and assemble the widowers of the people and let them bring each his rod, and to whomsoever the Lord shall show a sign, his wife shall she be. . . . And Joseph [was chosen]. . . . And the priest said to Joseph, ‘You have been chosen by lot to take into your keeping the Virgin of the Lord.’ But Joseph refused, saying, ‘I have children, and I am an old man, and she is a young girl’”
The Proto-Evangelium of James, 8-9, 150 AD (my emphasis)
“But, as appears, many even down to our own time regard Mary, on account of the birth of her child, as having been in the puerperal state, although she was not. For some say that, after she brought forth, she was found, when examined, to be a virgin.”
Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, book 7, paragraph 16, around 198 AD.
“If they [the brethren of the Lord] had been Mary’s sons and not those taken from Joseph’s former marriage, she would never have been given over in the moment of the passion [crucifixion] to the apostle John as his mother, the Lord saying to each, ‘Woman, behold your son,’ and to John, ‘Behold your mother’ [John 19:26–27), as he bequeathed filial love to a disciple as a consolation to the one desolate”
Hilary of Poitiers, Commentary on Matthew 1:4, 354 AD.
“To begin with, when the Virgin was entrusted
Epiphanius of Salamis, Panarion, Section 78:7, 5, Against the Antidikomarians (those that speak against Mary), 375 AD
to Joseph—lots having compelled her to take this step—she was not
entrusted to him for marriage, since he was a widower. (3) He was called
her husband because of the Law, but it is plainly follows from the Jewish
tradition that the Virgin was not entrusted to him for matrimony. (4) It was
for the preservation of her virginity in witness to the things to come—[a witness] that Christ’s incarnation was nothing spurious but was truly attested,
as without a man’s seed < but> truly brought about by the Holy Spirit.
7,5 For how could such an old man, who had lost his first wife so many
years before, take a virgin for a wife?”
The original video that Shamoun and Albrecht are responding to:
Shamoun and Albrecht’s video accusing James White of lying, thus mis-understanding him and slandering him. (typical of Shamoun’s sinful behavior on line – full of anger, cursing, insults, ad hominem argumentation, bellicosity, bravado, bullying, etc. See my 6 part series on Sam Shamoun’s need for repentance.
Javier Perdomo carefully demonstrates that Shamoun and Albrecht are mis-understanding and slandering; especially since they really know that James White knows about the earlier sources, as they have interacted with White’s videos and Dividing Line programs before. And James White mentions the Proto-Evangelium of James in his book, Mary, Another Redeemer? Javier does a good job of carefully documenting this, and also about J. B. Philips commentary about the Perpetual Virginity of Mary in early church history.
Javier Perdomo’s substack article and documenation (Part 2, you can also go to Part 1)
Part 1 of Javier Perdomo’s documentation.
Jerome’s writing, Against Helvidius, was around 383 AD.
21. “But as we do not deny what is written, so we do reject what is not written. We believe that God was born of the Virgin, because we read it. That Mary was married after she brought forth, we do not believe, because we do not read it.” Jerome, Against Helvidius, Defense of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, 21
– this statement by Jerome is amazing because we read, “Joseph, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife . . . ” Matthew 1:20 and that “he kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.” he kept her a virgin until (heos hou / ‘εως ‘ου ) – most of the time, the 2 words together mean a change in the situation. The context is even more decisive and the cumulative effect of that with the brothers and sisters passages. In Matthew 1, verse 18, “before they came together, Mary was found to be pregnant by the Holy Spirit” – “before they came together” and the over all context of the paragraph – about betrothal, virginity, marriage, and birth, it is self-evident that Matthew means that Mary and Joseph had a normal sexual relationship in marriage after Jesus was born.
* The part of the Proto-Evangelium of James that is Gnostic:
And the midwife said to him: Is this true? And Joseph said to her: Come and see. And the midwife went away with him. And they stood in the place of the cave, and behold a luminous cloud overshadowed the cave. And the midwife said: My soul has been magnified this day, because my eyes have seen strange things — because salvation has been brought forth to Israel. And immediately the cloud disappeared out of the cave, and a great light shone in the cave, so that the eyes could not bear it. And in a little that light gradually decreased, until the infant appeared, and went and took the breast from His mother Mary. And the midwife cried out, and said: This is a great day to me, because I have seen this strange sight. And the midwife went forth out of the cave, and Salome met her. And she said to her: Salome, Salome, I have a strange sight to relate to you: a virgin has brought forth — a thing which her nature admits not of. Then said Salome: As the Lord my God lives, unless I thrust in my finger, and search the parts, I will not believe that a virgin has brought forth.
20. And the midwife went in, and said to Mary: Show yourself; for no small controversy has arisen about you. And Salome put in her finger, and cried out, and said: Woe is me for mine iniquity and mine unbelief, because I have tempted the living God; and, behold, my hand is dropping off as if burned with fire.
Proto-Evangelium of James, 19-20
Mary, the Mother of Jesus, is indeed a blessed and godly believing woman! She was a virgin before Jesus was born and we defend the doctrine of the virgin conception of Jesus. (Matthew 1:18-25; Luke 1:26-35, Luke chapter 2) Jesus had no human father. Jesus Christ was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the virgin Mary, and was always God by nature, from the womb, and pre-existed in eternity past with the Father. (John 1:1-5; 1:14; Philippians 2:5-8) Jesus Christ is the eternal Son of God.
However, the Roman Catholic Church (and Eastern Orthodox and the other eastern ancient churches) has over-exalted her and gone too far, and “exceeded what is written” (1 Corinthians 4:6) – “do not go beyond what is written”.
27 While Jesus was saying these things, one of the women in the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, “Blessed is the womb that bore You and the breasts at which You nursed.” 28 But He said, “On the contrary, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it.” Luke 11:27-28
Even the Word of God here in Luke shows that the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Oriental Orthodox Churches and the Assyrian Church of the East go too far and go beyond Scripture.
Apologetics and Agape 
Isn’t it crazy to think that Christians (Sam Shamoun being one of them) have been making the claim the the Qur’an got it wrong about them taking Mary and Jesus (peace be upon them) as gods wrong? Now look at him:
“And (remember) when Allah will say (on the Day of Resurrection): “O ‘Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary)! Did you say unto men: ‘Worship me and my mother as two gods besides Allah?’ ” He will say: “Glory be to You! It was not for me to say what I had no right (to say). Had I said such a thing, You would surely have known it. You know what is in my inner-self though I do not know what is in Yours, truly, You, only You, are the All-Knower of all that is hidden and unseen.” Quran (5:116)
God the Allmighty spoke the truth!
The Qur’an obviously made a mistake about what Christians believe in the doctrine of the Trinity. Surah 5:116 and 5:72-78 and 6:101 and 19:88-92 and 4:171 & Surah 112, demonstrate that the author or compliers of the Qur’an did not know nor understand what the doctrine of the Trinity is. Mary was never a part of the Trinity, even by Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics who venerate icons of her and statues in the west of her, and pray to the statues and icons. The Christians of the era before the Qur’an, around 431 AD into the 600s and 700s, gave the Arabs before Islam, and then the Muslims that impression that Christians were worshipping Mary as a goddess and they assumed that she was one of the persons in the Trinity – the Father, the Son, and . . . the Mother. Since the Qur’an got the doctrine wrong, this also proves that the Qur’an is not from God (Allah in Arabic)
More on the Qur’an misunderstanding the doctrine of the Trinity:
Another article on how the Qur’an misunderstood the doctrine of the Trinity: