Saturday, August 22, 2009

Perpetual Virginity of Mary

The claim has been made by some Orthodox that:
For about 1,600 years the entire Church affirmed the ever-virginity of Mary. The notion that she did not remain a virgin was introduced by the Anabaptists and some Calvinists long after the Reformation was an established reality.
I don't believe that is historically accurate.

The teaching that Mary was ever-virgin is, as Michael Hyatt has noted (MP3) a major sticking point for some in conversion. For me it's the biggest theological point I have remaining. I've studied it and from what I can tell it was not the uniform teaching of the Orthodox church from the beginning.

There was a diversity of opinion about this view at the time of Origen (ca 248 AD), for instance. Origen wrote about the origin of the teaching and the diversity of opinion on the matter:
The Book [the Protoevangelium] of James [records] that the brethren 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 body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word . . . might not know intercourse with a man after that the Holy Spirit came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the firstfruit among men of the purity which consists in [perpetual] chastity, and Mary was among women. For it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the first-fruit of virginity" (Commentary on Matthew 2:17 [A.D. 248]).
Tertullian taught that Mary lost her virginity in the conception of Christ. (De carn Chr. 23.) Tertullian also believed that Mary had relations with Joseph after Jesus was born (Adv Marc 4, 19 de monog. 8, de virg vel. 6.). Tertullian also believed that the brothers were actually borne by Mary.

At the time of Jerome, there were people who rejected the view. Example, "The Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary Against Helvidius," ca 383 AD. Helvidius maintained that the mention in the Gospels of the "sisters" and "brethren" of our Lord was proof that the Blessed Virgin had subsequent issue, and he supported his opinion by the writings of Tertullian and Victorinus.

At the time of Augustine, there were people who rejected the teaching:
Heretics called Antidicomarites are those who contradict the perpetual virginity of Mary and affirm that after Christ was born she was joined as one with her husband" (Heresies 56 [A.D. 428]).
The Antidicomarianity and the Arian Eynomius openly taught that the brothers of Jesus were borne by Mary. Basil of Caesarea did not agree, but admitted that the view was widely held and is not incompatible with orthodoxy (Hom,. in sanctam Christi gen (PG 31, 1468 f.))..

Also, it seems to me that there are two competing and contradictory claims about who the "brothers and sisters of Jesus" were. One is that they were children of Joseph from a prior marriage. Another contradictory view is that they were cousins of Jesus. Both can't be right but both claim ancient origins.

The phrase "ever-virgin" did not come into vogue until post-Nicaea.

Chrysostom pointed out Mary was a sinner (e. g. hom in Matt 44:2, in John 21:2). In fact, at that time, only in Syria was Ephraem calling her free from every sin, like her son (Carm, Nisib 28, 8).

Hilliary denounced those who denied the perpetual virginity of Mary, demonstrating that there were people who denied it at his time (Comm in Matt 1, 3 f.).

Jerome invented the theory that the brothers of Jesus were actually cousins, not his brothers.

Interestingly the heretic Pelagius (who believed in the possibility of living a sinless life) believed that Mary lived a sinless life. Augustine agreed with Pelagius, but taught that Mary was a singularity.

The Lateran synod of AD 649 was the first to stress the threefold character of Mary's virginity.

Thus, contrary to the Council of Trent, the perpetual virginity was not a concensus of the Fathers.

Evidence of prayers to Mary in the first four centuries of the church is almost non-existent (Kelly - Early Christian Doctrines, pp 491-on).

No comments: