The Argumentation for Mary's Perpetual Virginity by Epiphanius

Originally posted on the aomin blog, 9/04/08

Many Roman Catholic websites will refer to the early church father Epiphanius of Salamis (310/320-403) as a source to substantiate early traditions concerning Marian doctrines. For instance, on Mary's perpetual virginity, This Rock Magazine, December 1991 and This Rock Magazine, February 2002 use him as historical support. Recently I posted an argument for Mary's perpetual virginity from Epiphanius. I'd like to share a few more of his arguments in favor of Mary's perpetual virginity. While it may be true that a particular church father held a Marian view similar to what Rome teaches today, Catholic apologists rarely explain the reasoning or differences between the current view and the ancient view. The argumentation used by ancient writers rarely matters for Catholic apologists. It cannot be denied that Epiphanius believed in Mary's perpetual virginity, but would the modern Catholic apologist grant the validity of Epiphanius's argumentation?

Epiphanius states, "For I have heard from someone that certain persons are venturing to say that [Mary] had marital relations after the Savior's birth. And I am not surprised. The ignorance of persons who do not know the sacred scriptures well and have not consulted histories, always turn them to one thing after another, and distracts anyone who wants to track down something about the truth out of his own head." Well so far, these words could be from a host on Catholic Answers Live. Let's take a look at the argumentation used and see how Biblical it is. Below are six arguments from Epiphanius in support of Mary's perpetual virginity.

Argument #1- Mary's title is "Virgin"

6.1 Why this ill will? Why so much impudence? Isn't Mary's very name (i.e. "Virgin") a testimony, you troublemaker? Doesn't it convince you? Who, and in which generation, has ever dared to say St. Mary's name and not add "Virgin" at once when asked? The marks of excellence show from the titles of honour themselves. (2) For the righteous received the honors of their titles appropriately for them and as it became them. "friend of God" was added to the name, "Abraham," and will not be detached from it. The title, "Israel," was added to "Jacob" and will not be changed. The title "Boanerges," or "sons of thunder," was given to the apostles and will not be discarded. And St. Mary was given the title, "Virgin," and it will not be altered, for the holy woman remained undefiled. Frank Williams, trans., The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis: Book II and III (Sects 47-80, De Fide) 78. Against Antidicomarians, 15,4 (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994), pp. 604-605.

Argument #2- Mary wasn't entrusted to Joseph for marriage

7.2 To begin with, when it fell to the Virgin's lot to be entrusted to Joseph she was not entrusted to him for marriage, since he was a widower. (3)He was called her husband because of the Law, but it plainly follows from the Jewish tradition that the Virgin was not entrusted to him for matrimony (Ibid.p. 605).

8.2 So we are told in the Gospel, for it says, "Mary, his espoused wife;" it didn't say, "married wife" (Ibid. p. 606).

Argument #3- Joseph was to old to have children with Mary

7.5 For how could such an old man who had lost his first wife so many years before, take a virgin for a wife? (Ibid.).

8.4 In the first place, the course of nature entirely confutes them. An old man of over eighty did not take a virgin as a sexual partner to begin with; she was committed to his protection. (Ibid., p. 606).

8.5 If even today (many of the faithful) strive to remain virgin, pure and continent in his name, wasn't Joseph more faithful? And Mary herself, "who," as scripture says, "pondered all things in her heart?" After a dispensation of that sort, as such greatness and importance (how could it not be wrong) for an elderly man to have relations once more, with a pure and honored virgin, a vessel which had contained the Uncontainable and had received such a mystery of a heavenly sign and man's salvation? (Ibid., p. 607).

10.5 But nowhere have we heard that Joseph fathered (more) sons. Indeed, he did not live many years after his return from Egypt, for it was the Savior's forth year, while Joseph was over eighty-four when he arrived from Egypt. And Joseph survived for another eight years; and Jesus in his twelfth year, as it says in the Gospel according to Luke, he was sought for on their journey to Jerusalem, when he could not be found on the road (Ibid., p. 608).

20.3 For even if it was expected that the Virgin would have relations with Joseph, an impossibility because of his age, the holy scriptures show us in advance, and confirms our notion, (to) convince (us) that, although the thing is possible despite the sacred childbirth, no man(may) ever again approach the Virgin for sexual relations- convincing us in the same way in which the angel convinced Joseph that his suspicion was unfounded (Ibid., p. 616).

Argument #4- The "brothers of Jesus" are children from Joseph's first wife

7.5 Joseph was the brother of Cleopas but the son of Jacob surnamed Panther; both of these brothers were the sons of the man surnamed Panther. (6) Joseph took his first wife from the tribe of Judah and she bore him six children in all, four boys and two girls, as the Gospels according to Mark and John have made clear [Mark 6:3; John 19:25] (Ibid. p. 605).

Argument #5- Mary's alleged other children are not named in the Bible

9.1 Where can I not find proof that the Virgin remained pure? For a starter, let them show me that Mary bore children after the savior's birth! Let these designers and reciters of deceit and mischief make the names up and give them! But they can't show them because she was still a virgin and perish the thought, had no sexual relations! (Ibid., p. 607).

Argument #6- Interpretation of "and he knew her not"

17.7b "And he knew her not." For how could he know that a woman would receive so much grace? Or how could he know that (the Virgin) would be so highly glorified? (8) He knew that she was a woman by her appearance, and her womanliness by her sex, and knew that her mother was Ann and her father Joachim, that she was related to Elizabeth, that she was of the house and lineage of David. But he did not know that anyone on earth, especially a woman, would be honored with such glory. (9) He did not know how wondrous she was until he had seen "that which was born of her." But when she gave birth he also knew the honor God had done her, for it was she who had been told, "Hail, thou art highly favored, the Lord is with thee" (Ibid. p. 614).

In all of these arguments, one is hard pressed to find Biblical support. Some of the argumentation is very similar to material found in the Protoevangelium of James, an apocryphal source. Epiphanius doesn't argue that the brothers of Jesus are cousins, as most of the current pop-apologists do. Rather, his view is that these are children from Joseph's previous marriage. This would be a minority view among Roman Catholics today. Epiphanius states that incorrect views on Mary's virginity stem from ignorance of the sacred scriptures. I would not deny Epiphanius knew scripture, I would though argue his incorrect views on Mary are the result of poor exegesis and tradition being foisted onto the Biblical text, rather than letting the text speak for itself.

Tiber Swim Book Club #2

I wanted to provide some book recommendations for all of you getting ready to swim the Tiber and convert to Roman Catholicism. You know how you're reading the Early Church Fathers, and how wonderful it is? You know that feeling you're getting that now you've plugged into ancient Christian history? Well, as you're ordering your books by Hahn, Madrid, or Ray, (the ones telling you all about Church history that you think are "unanswerable"), for the sake of both sides of the issue, because we know you're trying to be as honest and careful as possible in your research, I think you need to secure a copy of this book:

A Treatise on the Right Use of the Fathers in the Decision of Controversies Existing at This Day in Religion by John Daillé (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1856)

Here's an excerpt from the book on how two contemporaries and friends have two different opinions on an important subject:

Epiphanius maintains against Aerius,of whom he ranks among the Heresiarchs, that a bishop, according to the Apostle Paul, and the original institution of the office itself, is more than a priest: and this he proves in many words, answering all the objections that are made to the contrary. If you only read the passage, I am confident that when you have done, you would not hesitate to swear that what he has there delivered, was the general opinion of all the doctors of the Church; it being very unlikely that so great and so renowned a prelate would so positively have denied the opinion which he disputed against, if any one of his own familiar friends had also maintained the same. Yet for all this, Jerome, who was one of the principal lights of our western Church, and who lived at the same time with Epiphanius, who was his intimate friend, and a great admirer of his piety, says expressly, "that among the ancients, bishops and priests were the same; the one being a name of dignity, and the other of age." That it may not be thought that this fell from him in discourse only, he there undertakes to prove the same at large, alleging several passages of Scripture on this subject; and he also repeats the same thing, in two or three several places of his work; whereby it evidently appears that even positions quite contradictory to the opinions which have been delivered and maintained by some of the Fathers, and proposed in whatever terms, have notwithstanding been sometimes either maintained, or at least tolerated, by some others of no less authority.

Jerome himself has severely criticised Rufnnus, and condemned many of his opinions as most pernicious and deadly; yet we do not anywhere find that he was ever accounted a heretic by the rest of the Fathers. But we shall have occasion hereafter to consider more at large similar examples; and shall only at present observe, that if those books of Jerome, which we mentioned a little before, should have chanced to be lost, every man would then assuredly have concluded from Epiphanius, that no doctor of the ancient Church ever held, that a bishop and a priest were one and the same thing in their institution.

Who now, after all this, will assure us, that among so many other opinions as have been rejected here and there by the Fathers, and that too in as plain terms as those of Epiphanius, none of them have ever been defended by some of the learned of those times? Or, is it not possible, that they may have held them, though they did not write in defence of the same? Or may they not perhaps have written also in defence of them, and their books have been since lost ? How small is the number of those in the Church, who had the ability, or at least the will, to write ! And how much smaller is the number of those whose writings have been able to secure themselves against either the injury of time or the malice of men!

It is objected against the Protestants, as we have observed before, that Jerome commends and maintains the adoration of relics: but yet he himself testifies, that there were some bishops, who defended Vigilantius, who held the contrary opinion; whom he, according to his ordinary rhetoric, calls " accomplices in his wickedness."*

Who knows now what these bishops were, and whether they deserved any such usage at Jerome's hands or no? For the expressions which he uses against them, and against their opinions, are so full of gall and enmity, that they utterly take away all credit from his testimony. But we have insisted long enough upon this particular, and shall therefore forbear to instance any further in others.

As it is therefore impossible to discover exactly, out of the Fathers, what have been the sense and judgment of the ancient Church,—whether taken universally or particularly, or whether the Church is taken for the whole body of believers, or for the prelates and inferior clergy only,—I shall here conclude as heretofore, that the writings of the ancients are altogether insufficient for proving the truth of any of those points which are at this day controverted amongst us.

Epiphanius and Mariology

I got caught up in a discusion on the early church father, Epiphanius. It was brought up that Epiphanius charged the Collyridians with worshiping Mary. A Roman Catholic responded, "...you seem to have failed to consider the ramifications of using St. Epiphanius' refutation of the Collyridians as an argument against the veneration of Mary. There, he explicitly lays out what Marian latria would look like..." Then, the following citation was given:

For certain women decorate a barber's chair or square seat, spread a cloth on it, set out bread and offer it in Mary's name on a certain day of the year, and all partake of the bread;[St. Epiphanius of Salamis, Panarion, Section VII, 1,6]

This is a classic example of reading with Roman Catholic glasses. Epiphanius does not specify a latria / dulia distinction. This is being read in to avoid the obvious. Here's the quote:

Epiphanius of Salamis (310/320-403): "And who but women are the teachers of this? Women are unstable, prone to error, and mean-spirited. As in our earlier chapter on Quintilla, Maximilla and Priscilla, so here the devil has seen fit to disgorge ridiculous teachings from the mouths of women. For certain women decorate a barber’s chair or a square seat, spread a cloth on it, set out bread and offer it in Mary’s name on a certain day of the year, and all partake of the bread; I discussed parts of this right in my letter to Arabia. Now, however, I shall speak plainly of it and, with prayer to God, give the best refutations of it that I can, so as to grub out the roots of this idolatrous sect and with God’s help, be able to cure certain people of this madness." Frank Williams, trans., The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis: Book II and III (Sects 47-80, De Fide) 59. Against Collyridians who make offerings to Mary, 1,6-7 (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994), p. 621.

Epiphanius also states,

Let no one eat of the error which has arisen on St. Mary’s account. Even though ‘The tree is lovely’ it is not for food; and even though Mary is all fair, and is holy and held in honor, she is not to be worshiped. . . . They must not say, ‘We honor the queen of heaven.’ Frank Williams, trans., The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis: Book II and III (Sects 47-80, De Fide) 79. Against Collyridians, 7,7; 8,2 (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994), p. 627.

But, there's always a response from Rome's defenders:

"Not sure what your point is supposed to be here. We both agree that offering sacrifice to Mary is idolatry. That is the line which we believe delineates "worship"....The whole of this section is perfectly in line with what we're saying - don't worship Mary. Worshipping her is an abomination."

The point is quite simple. This person is reading a later Romanist theological distinctive back into the words of Epiphanius. Epiphanius did not delineate aspects of Marian worship into latria, dulia, or hyperdulia. He did not delineate what he saw into the category of latria. The paradigm of latria/dulia was assumed by this Roman Catholic, not proven.

The Mariology of Epiphanius is not completely similar to modern day Roman Catholics. He didn't believe in the Assumption as it is currently stated, he says not to call Mary "Queen of Heaven," for him it is not a necessary matter of faith to embrace Mary's Perpetual Virginity, and he holds the least popular view as to the interpretation of the phrase "brothers of Jesus"- holding these are the children of Joseph from a previous marriage. In all these instances, from a current Roman Catholic paradigm, Catholics would disagree with Epiphanius.

Within current Roman Catholicism, lighting a candle to a saint is perfectly acceptable, and not "worship." Why? Because Rome says so. The situation described by Epiphanius is not, according to the Catholic I was dialoging with. Why? because Rome says so. One wonders what Epiphanius would think of lighting candles to Mary. I leave it to Roman Catholics to explain why lighting a candle is not an aspect of worship, while decorating a barber's chair or square seat, spreading a cloth on it, setting out bread and offering it in Mary's name on a certain day of the year, and all partaking of the bread is.

Epiphanius words are from long ago. Roman Catholics claim their faith today is the same as those from long ago. Epiphanius proves it is not. Catholics like to argue that those ECF's closer to the time of Christ and the apostles are somehow more "in the know" on things like Mariology. Obviously, Epiphanius presents quite a problem for a such a view.

*************************
Here are some other tidbits (Thanks to David King for his work and transcriptions of the quotes above and below)

Here's Epiphanius on Mary's Assumption- a tradition allegedly dating back to the first century, and if I recall, his comment below is the earliest "tradition" of Mary's death- that is, no one knows!

Epiphanius of Salamis (310/320-403): The holy virgin may have died and been buried---her falling asleep was with honor, her death in purity, her crown in virginity. Or she may have been put to death---as the Scripture says, "And a sword shall pierce her soul" her fame is among the martyrs and her holy body, by which light rose on the world, [rests] amid blessings. Or she may have remained alive, for God is not incapable of doing whatever he wills. No one knows her end. But we must not honor the saints to excess; we must honor their Master.

And for Epiphanius, it is not a necessary matter of faith to embrace Mary's Perpetual Virginity-

Epiphanius of Salamis (310/320-403): Now how could Joseph dare to have relations with the Virgin Mary whose holiness was so great? But even if she had sexual relations---and perish that thought!---what good would it do us to inquire into this? Which is the better choice, to leave the matter to God, or to insist on what is bad? Plainly, scripture has not told us that we may not have eternal life, but will go to judgment, unless we believe that Mary had relations again. Frank Williams, trans., The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis: Book II and III (Sects 47-80, De Fide) 78. Against Antidicomarians, 15,4 (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994), p. 619.

And one last thing, let's not forget this gem of alleged wisdom from Epiphanius: "Women are unstable, prone to error, and mean-spirited."