While they both believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary, both John Chrysostom and Jerome believed that the verb συνέρχομαι (“to come together”) is used in Matt 1:18 as a euphemism for sexual relations:
John Chrysostom:
5.
How then was He born, I pray thee? "When as His mother Mary was
espoused:" He saith not "virgin," but merely "mother;"
so that his account is easy to be received. And so having beforehand prepared
the hearer to look for some ordinary piece of information, and by this laying
hold of him, after all he amazes him by adding the marvellous fact, saying,
"Before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy
Ghost." He saith not, "before she was brought to the bridegroom's
house;" for indeed she was therein. It being the way of the ancients for
the most part to keep their espoused wives in their house: in those parts, at
least, where one may see the same practised even now. Thus also Lot's
sons-in-law were in his house with him. Mary then herself likewise was in the
house with Joseph.
And
wherefore did she not conceive before her espousal? It was, as I said at first,
that what had been done might be concealed awhile, and that the Virgin might
escape every evil suspicion. For when he, who had most right of all to feel
jealousy, so far from making her a show, or degrading her, is found even
receiving and cherishing her after her conception; it was quite clear that,
unless he had fully persuaded himself that what was done was of the operation
of the Holy Spirit, he would not have kept her with him, and ministered to her
in all other things. And most properly hath he said, that "she was ‘found'
with child," the sort of expression that is wont to be used with respect
to things strange, and such as happen beyond all expectation, and are unlooked
for.
Proceed
therefore no further, neither require anything more than what hath been said;
neither say thou, "But how was it that the Spirit wrought this of a
virgin?" For if, when nature is at work, it is impossible to explain the
manner of the formation; how, when the Spirit is working miracles, shall we be
able to express these? And lest thou shouldest weary the evangelist, or disturb
him by continually asking these things, he hath said who it was that wrought
the miracle, and so withdrawn himself. "For I know," saith he,
"nothing more, but that what was done was the work of the Holy
Ghost." (John Chrysostom, Homily on the Gospel of St. Matthew, 4.5 [NPNF1
10:22]
Jerome:
4.
Let us take the points one by one, and follow the tracks of this impiety that
we may show that he has contradicted himself. He admits that she was betrothed,
and in the next breath will have her to be a man’s
wife whom he has admitted to be his betrothed. Again, he calls her wife, and
then says the only reason why she was betrothed was that she might one day be
married. And, for fear we might not think that enough, “the
word used,” he says, “is
betrothed and not intrusted, that is to say, not yet a wife, not
yet united by the bond of wedlock.” But when he
continues, “the Evangelist would never have applied
the words, before they came together to persons who were not to come
together, any more than one says, before he dined, when the man is not going to
dine,” I know not whether to grieve or laugh. Shall
I convict him of ignorance, or accuse him of rashness? Just as if, supposing a
person to say, “Before dining in harbour I sailed
to Africa,” his words could not hold good unless he
were compelled some day to dine in harbour. If I choose to say, “the apostle Paul before he went to Spain was put in
fetters at Rome,” or (as I certainly might) “Helvidius, before he repented, was cut off by death,” must Paul on being released at once go to Spain, or
must Helvidius repent after death, although the Scripture says “In sheol who shall give thee thanks?” Must we not rather understand that the preposition before,
although it frequently denotes order in time, yet sometimes refers only to
order in thought? So that there is no necessity, if sufficient cause intervened
to prevent it, for our thoughts to be realized. When, then, the Evangelist says
before they came together, he indicates the time immediately preceding
marriage, and shows that matters were so far advanced that she who had been
betrothed was on the point of becoming a wife. As though he said, before they
kissed and embraced, before the consummation of marriage, she was found to be
with child. And she was found to be so by none other than Joseph, who watched
the swelling womb of his betrothed with the anxious glances, and, at this time,
almost the privilege, of a husband. Yet it does not follow, as the previous
examples showed, that he had intercourse with Mary after her delivery, when his
desires had been quenched by the fact that she had already conceived. And
although we find it said to Joseph in a dream, “Fear
not to take Mary thy wife”; and again, “Joseph arose from his sleep, and did as the angel of the
Lord commanded him, and took unto him his wife,” no
one ought to be disturbed by this, as though, inasmuch as she is called wife,
she ceases to be betrothed, for we know it is usual in Scripture to give
the title to those who are betrothed. The following evidence from Deuteronomy
establishes the point. “If the man,” says the writer, “find the
damsel that is betrothed in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her,
he shall surely die, because he hath humbled his neighbour’s
wife.” And in another place, “If
there be a damsel that is a virgin betrothed unto an husband, and a man find
her in the city, and lie with her; then ye shall bring them both out unto the
gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the
damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath
humbled his neighbour’s wife: so thou shalt put away
the evil from the midst of thee.” Elsewhere also, “And what man is there that hath betrothed a wife, and
hath not taken her? let him go and return unto his house, lest he die in the
battle, and another man take her.” But if anyone
feels a doubt as to why the Virgin conceived after she was betrothed rather
than when she had no one betrothed to her, or, to use the Scripture phrase, no
husband, let me explain that there were three reasons. First, that by the
genealogy of Joseph, whose kinswoman Mary was, Mary’s
origin might also be shown. Secondly, that she might not in accordance with the
law of Moses be stoned as an adulteress. Thirdly, that in her flight to Egypt
she might have some solace, though it was that of a guardian rather than a
husband. For who at that time would have believed the Virgin’s word that she had conceived of the Holy Ghost, and that
the angel Gabriel had come and announced the purpose of God? and would not all
have given their opinion against her as an adulteress, like Susanna? for at the
present day, now that the whole world has embraced the faith, the Jews argue
that when Isaiah says, “Behold, a virgin shall
conceive and bear a son,” the Hebrew word denotes a
young woman, not a virgin, that is to say, the word is Almah, not Bethulah,
a position which, farther on, we shall dispute more in detail. Lastly,
excepting Joseph, and Elizabeth, and Mary herself, and some few others who, we
may suppose, heard the truth from them, all considered Jesus to be the son of
Joseph. And so far was this the case that even the Evangelists, expressing the
prevailing opinion, which is the correct rule for a historian, call him the
father of the Saviour, as, for instance, “And he
(that is, Simeon) came in the Spirit into the temple: and when the parents brought
in the child Jesus, that they might do concerning him after the custom of the
law;” and elsewhere, “And
his parents went every year to Jerusalem at the feast of the passover.” And afterwards, “And when
they had fulfilled the days, as they were returning, the boy Jesus tarried
behind in Jerusalem; and his parents knew not of it.”
Observe also what Mary herself, who had replied to Gabriel with the words, “How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?” says concerning Joseph, “Son,
why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I sought thee
sorrowing.” We have not here, as many maintain, the
utterance of Jews or of mockers. The Evangelists call Joseph father: Mary
confesses he was father. Not (as I said before) that Joseph was really the
father of the Saviour: but that, to preserve the reputation of Mary, he was
regarded by all as his father, although, before he heard the admonition of the
angel, “Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take
unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy
Ghost,” he had thoughts of putting her away
privily; which shows that he well knew that the child conceived was not his.
But we have said enough, more with the aim of imparting instruction than of
answering an opponent, to show why Joseph is called the father of our Lord, and
why Mary is called Joseph’s wife. This also at once
answers the question why certain persons are called his brethren. (Jerome, Against
Helvidius 1.4 [NPNF2 6:335-37])
