Scripture says that Mary and Joseph were betrothed, and that when Joseph found out that Mary was pregnant, he planned to quietly divorce her. Both of these tidbits of information indicate a Jewish betrothal contract, one that could only be dissolved by divorce
You said of a man having the right to relations with his betrothed:
“it’s consistent with what we find in the Bible”
Still you supply nothing in Scripture that supports that it was Jewish law that a man has sexual rights to his betrothed.
What we do find in Scripture is that Joseph did not act on any such “Jewish laws” as they were betrothed before the Annunciation and he had yet to touch her.
We do know when he did however:
Mat 1:25 “…but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son”
and secular historical sources about first-century Jewish betrothals tell us that men could exercise conjugal rights with their betrothed spouses.
So what is on page 72 of Jewish Marriage in Antiquity By Michael L. Satlow?
Look it up.
Even offered a chance to support your claims and you cannot accept the opportunity.
This is not looking well for your position. You offer nothing.
**You said that was, in effect, what she was saying.
Mary’s actual words say something entirely different.**
No matter. It is plain before us all.
She surely did not say anything like she will always be a virgin…as you erroneously implied.
I am not lying.
You are lying. Your are claiming I said or did something that I did not say or do. That is called lying.
Since I never said you meant your added words to be Mary’s words, your objection is moot and a false charge.
**Her question was specifically about her present sexual state…not any future sexual state. **
That’s your interpretation.
That is the text.
All reference to the present. No reference to the future.
No “interpretation” needed.
Mary could have been inquiring about her present AND future sexual states.
Is that your defense?
That is not what you originally posted.
She also could have been joking…but “could haves” are not worth the broadband they use up.
The text does not supply you with “could haves.” It supplies you with what is.
She specifically responded in the present tense…not the future tense as you forward.
Again, that’s your interpretation.
That be the fact, not anyone’s “interpretation.”
That’s why you will not find any translation anywhere that has her saying anything like “since I will always be a virgin.”
She could also be speaking about a present condition that will continue into the future.
Thank God that sound doctrine is not based on “could have been.”