Some Catholic apologists have appealed to a pseudepigraphical text called the Odes of Solomon, dating from the late first/early second century as evidence for the antiquity of the perpetual virginity of Mary. For instance, Gerry Matatics, who was once a traditionalist mainstream Catholic (now a Sedevacantist) has appealed to Ode 19 as evidence that the perpetual virginity is taught in this text, evidencing both its antiquity and apostolicity within early Christianity.
While not a Gnostic text[1] they do provide evidence of being tinged with Gnosticism, such as the Protoevangelium of James and similar works such Gnosticism and other heretical concepts (even from Roman Catholicism’s perspective), and this comes out in Ode 19 itself[2]:
A cup of milk was offered to me, and I drank it in the sweetness of the Lord’s kindness. The Son is the cup, and the Father is he who was milked; and the Holy Spirit is she who milked him; because his breasts are full, and it was undesirable that his milk should be released without purpose. The Holy Spirit opened her bosom, and mixed the milk of the two breasts of the Father. Then she gave the mixture to the generation without their knowing and those who have received it are in the perfection of the right hand. The womb of the Virgin took it, and she received conception and gave birth. So the Virgin became a mother with great mercies, and she laboured and bore the Son but without pain, because it did not occur without purpose. And she did not seek a midwife, because he caused her to give life. She bore as a strong man with desire, and she bore according to the manifestation and possessed with great power. And she loved with all salvation, and guarded with kindness, and declared with greatness.
Hallelujah.
Notice a few things—
Firstly, Ode 19 presents the Holy Spirit as a woman, which is antithetical to Catholic theology.
Secondly, the Ode presents God the Father as having breasts which the Holy Spirit milked.
Thirdly, with respect to the Virgin Mary, it is not said that she remained a perpetual virgin, but that she did not experience labour pains during the birth of Jesus, which is very docetic in its Christology.[3]
The more careful Catholic and Eastern Orthodox apologist for the perpetual virginity of Mary should avoid using this text as evidence in favour of this particular teaching of their Mariology. Furthermore, Latter-day Saints and others are in the enviable position of privileging the biblical texts over later traditions and letting the plain meaning of the pertinent texts and the underlying Greek speak for themselves (e.g., Matt 1:18-25; 12:46-48; 13:55-56; John 7:1-5)
Notes for the Above
[1] See the discussion in J.H. Charlesworth, “Odes of Solomon,” in The Old Testament Pseudepigrpha (2 vols.; New York: Doubleday, 1983-1985), ed. J. H. Charlesworth, 2:725
[2] Ibid., 752-53.
[3] At best, one could argue that this text shows that Mary’s hymen remained in tact post partum which is part of the Catholic dogma of Mary’s perpetual virginity. Of course, such screams of Docetic tendencies which the biblical authors would reject (cf. 1 John 4:1-3).
