Speaking of Joseph and Mary's marital relations with one another, Matt 1:25 reads:
But [Joseph] had no marital relations with her until she had borne a son; and he named him Jesus (NRSV)
It has been argued by opponents of the perpetual virginity of Mary that the phrase translated as "until" in this verse (εως ου) results in a termination of the main clause, that is, Joseph and Mary ceased their absistence from sexual relations until after the birth of Jesus, but engaged in such once the "until" was reached. For a full discussion of εως ου in Matt 1:25 and its implications for the perpetual virginity of Mary, see the opening chapters of Eric D. Svendsen’s book, Who is My Mother? The Role and Status of the Mother of Jesus in the New Testament and Roman Catholicism (Amityville, N.Y.: Calvary Press, 2001)
Margaret A. Schatkin, a New Testament textual critic, while herself a Lutheran who accepts the perpetual virginity, admits that εως ου in this verse does support the “Helvidian” view (i.e., Mary and Joseph engaged in sexual intercourse and had children, and these were Jesus [half] biological brothers and sisters). She herself has to engage in special pleading and question-begging to the nth degree to propose a conjectural emendation to the verse to read otherwise (she proposes και ουκ εγινωσκεν αυτην. Ομου τη ετεκεν υιον και εκαλεσεν το ονομα αυτου ‘Ιησουν).
Commenting on εως ου in Matt 1:25, she writes:
If και ουκ εγινωσκεν αυτην were a concessive clause, it would have to be in the form of a condition introduced by ει και and the negative would be μη (Smyth, 2371, 2375). Matthew writes a concessive clause another way, using καν in a future more vivid condition (Mt 21:21, 26:35, Blass-Debrunner 457).
Thus there is no valid reason based on Greek grammar to reject the normal significance of the temporal conjunction, εως ου meaning “until.”
The composite εως ου originated in New Ionic as the analogy of αχρι ου, μεχρι ου, and was used like εως in latr Greek.
In his Gospel Matthew uses εως ου at least five times including the locus suspectus (Mt 1:25a) and does not depart from classical syntax. He distinguishes between εως ου plus the indicative when a definite past action is involved (Mt 13:33) and εως ου with the subjunctive without αν, when reference is made definitely to the future (Mt 14:22, 17:9b, 18:34):
Mt 13:33: ὁμοία ἐστὶν ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν ζύμῃ, ἣν λαβοῦσα γυνὴ ἐνέκρυψεν εἰς ἀλεύρου σάτα τρία ἕως οὗ ἐζυμώθη ὅλον
Mt 14:22: Καὶ εὐθέως ἠνάγκασεν τοὺς μαθητὰς ἐμβῆναι εἰς τὸ πλοῖον καὶ προάγειν αὐτὸν εἰς τὸ πέραν, ἕως οὗ ἀπολύσῃ τοὺς ὄχλους
Mt 17:9b: μηδενὶ εἴπητε τὸ ὅραμα ἕως οὗ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐκ νεκρῶν ἐγερθῇ.
Mt 18:34: καὶ ὀργισθεὶς ὁ κύριος αὐτοῦ παρέδωκεν αὐτὸν τοῖς βασανισταῖς ἕως οὗ ἀποδῷ πᾶν τὸ ὀφειλόμενον
In all these cases, the action of the first (principal) clause terminates when the action/meaning of the second clause begins/goes into effect. When the first clause is affirmative, its action terminates upon the commencement of the until clause.
In these examples (Mt 13:33, 14:22, 18:34), the action of the main clause being affirmative, has an impact/result upon the action specified in the until clause. There is a cause/effect relationship when the first (principal) clause is positive though sometimes there is an ellipse of thought or of some state of action/ When the first (principal) clause is negative, the action of the first (principal) clause begins when the action of the subordinate (until) clause has been accomplished. When the first (principal) clause is in the negative, there is a withholding of some action which goes into effect when the until clause is realized (e.g., Mt 17:9b).
As already stated, the controversialist Helvidius in the fourth century understood the textus receptus of Matthew 1:25a (in Latin translation) to mean that the action of “knowing” (sexual intimacy) in the principal clause commenced when the action of the subordinate clause (“giving birth”) had been completed. “Post partum ergo cognovits, cojus cognitionem ad partum usque distulerat.” Though attacked by St. Jerome, Helvidius seems to have been correct in his analysis of the Latin and, by extension, of the original Greek grammar.
The attempts of the church fathers to interpret this verse in any other way than that of Helvidius, reveal that syntactical analysis was not in the front of their minds. Their exegesis appears to be more apologetic defense of the ecclesiastical tradition regarding the perpetual virginity of Mary, than objective grammatical analysis. This is not surprising because the textus receptus of Matthew 1:25, when taken literally, clashed with early Christian sensibility about the virgin Mary. Such a discrepancy between Scripture and tradition is rare in early Christianity, as are the efforts of the church fathers to justify the textus receptus of Matthew 1:25a. (Margaret A. Schatkin, “The Perpetual Virginity of Mary and New Testament Criticism,” in De Maria Numquam Satis: The Significance of the Catholic Doctrines of the Blessed Virgin Mary for All People, eds. Judith Marie Gentle and Robert L. Fastiggi [Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 2009], 37-67, here, pp. 54-55)
It is refreshing to read a proponent of the perpetual virginity of Mary admit that, grammatically and exegetically, the text Matt 1:25, without engaging in inventive attempts at their proposed conjectural emendation, proves the claim Mary and Joseph engaged in normal sexual relations with one another after the birth of Jesus.
