Mark, I think your explanation is really thorough and convincing. Let me just note that, in my view, you are mistaking "celibacy" with "perpetual continence".
Certainly, Mary and Joseph were not "celibates" since they were married. Celibacy implies a state of life whereby a person voluntarily renounces to marry (the Catholic encyclopedia defines celibacy as "Celibacy is the renunciation of marriage implicitly or explicitly made, for the more perfect observance of chastity, by all those who receive the Sacrament of Orders in any of the higher grades").
The lack of sexual intimacy between spouses would be "continence" -as every husband and wife can practice from time to time living chastely- and, if that implies a purpose of not having sexual intimacy altogether -as SS. Mary and Joseph did- that would be "perpetual" continence, but not celibacy.
Sorry if it sounds pedantic. That's not the intention.
Best regards
Wow! - Gulp.
Excellent stuff Mark.
Get the book out quick.
Now - anyone else out there to dispute Mary's Perpetual Virginity?? 
Ah, good old YWAM. I have fond memories with YWAM. I was in YWAM in Copenhagen and it was a good experience which was no doubt part of my formation that would lead me into the Catholic Church.
I think we just had the opportunity to read Mark's latest book. 
Funny, I was just thinking about that "until" thing when I was reading, I think it was somewhere in Matthew 28:
"And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age."
I don't think He's leaving us after that.
Mark, excellent!
So, can we copy this and email it to people?
Mark:
Whoa! :o Thanks! You've just convinced me to buy your book when it,s published. Fantastic exgesis!!
xavier
Great Mark!
I had often gotten the impression from reading various traditions and the gospels themselves that Mary and Joseph were acting always in holy obedience for the betrothal. That neither wished personally for the married life. Joseph was chosen therefore because of his fitness and ultimate willingness for such a role. Anyone with other hopes or dreams would probably have had to live a continual inner life of conflict.
And...is there any other possible translation for that "until"?
John:
How about you send the link to this blog entry.
Mark, are you familiar with Luke Timothy Johnson's arguments against Mary's perpetual virginity?
Disclaimer: I am not! At all! But it's my understanding that he and other well-known Catholic academics also deny Mary's perpetual virginity. What I'm wondering is if their basis for denying this is the same as the average Protestant's, or if he takes a different approach - and, if so, if your book also addresses that approach.
Posting in ignorance,
ATP
P.S.: I love what you've written and look forward to your book. Did I miss where you've given us an ETA for its publication?
Mark,
I think the section about Joseph alone is probably worth whatever price you put on the book. Beautiful.
All good Catholics accept the fact of Mary's perpetual virginity. Protestants could probably accept the fact too if they understood why it was important. Most Catholics couldn't tell you why it was important either except that somehow Mary would have been less holy if she had had legitimate married sex with her husband. The Church doesn't need to defend the perpetual virginity of Mary. The Church needs to defend its importance.
Greetings to Mark's correspondents from another former YWAMmer who is now Catholic. On Mary's perpetual virginity, I am impressed by the article by noted Protestant New Testament scholar Richard Bauckham who argues simply on biblical and historical grounds that these "brothers and sisters" of Jesus are NOT children of Mary and Joseph (even though he does not believe in perpetual virginity of Mary!) The article (not available online) is 'The Brothers and Sisters of Jesus: An Epiphanian Response to John P. Meier', Catholic Biblical Quarterly 56 (1994), 686-700. He is arguing against a Catholic Biblical scholar (go figure!) but the point is, simply based on biblical and historical evidence he questions the usual Protestant interpretation of these "brethren" as born of Mary and Joseph.
I guess what I'm asking is - not being very familiar with the substance of Meier's argument (and the like) - is it basically the same as standard Protestant objections to this doctrine? Or do Catholic scholars go at it from another angle - in which case, does Mark's book address their arguments?
Gosh, just where were all those "brothers" of Jesus at His crucifixion? Why did He have to rely on a friend to care for His (their) mother from that point on? Oh, I can guess...they were off partying with the Magdalene's former group of associates. Well, at least that's another scenario for Opie's DVCII.
Brilliant, Mark!!
Now I understand much better than I did before.
Well done.
Mark,
Doesn't your point about (the betrothed) Mary being surprised at the prospect of bearing a child undermine your later claim about Joseph being reticent about taking on marital celibacy because of the parallel between Moses and Sinai? If he knew that Mary intended to remain a virgin, it seems this would not be an issue. Further, if she was expecting a celibate marriage, it would seem she and Joseph already have some sort of theological/eschatological commitments/seriousness that would not impair him from taking on this new assignment.
Just a thought.
Commenting by HaloScan
