In his book on Mariology in the New
Testament, Eric Svendsen wrote the following about Quodvultdeus (d. 450) and his linking the “woman”
of Rev 12 with Mary (according to Trent
Horn, he "is that the earliest Church father to identify the woman as
Mary"):
Quodvultdeus, a fifth-century
writer who is thought to have been a friend and disciple of Augustine, is the
first known writer historically to associate the woman of Revelation 12
with Mary:
In the apocalypse of John the
Apostle it is written that “the dragon stood before the woman who was about to
bring forth, that when she had delivered her child, he might devour it . . . No
one of you is ignorant of this: that the dragon is the devil; nor of this: that
the woman signifies the Virgin Mary, who being inviolate, brought forth our
Head inviolate; at the same time she represented in her person Holy Church in
figure, that as she remained a virgin in bringing forth her Son, so also the
Church brings forth His members at all times, without any loss to her
virginity. (Quodvultdeus,
De Symbolo 3; cited in B. Le Frois, The Woman Clothed with the Sun (Ap.
12): Individual or Collective? Rome: Orbis catholicus, 1954, p. 52)
While Quodvultdeus clearly says that
the woman signifies Mary, Le Frois’ further, unwarranted assertion that “we can
take for granted that St. Augustine’s own doctrine is reflected in his disciple’s
teaching”—by which he means that this must also have been the view of Augustine—begs
the question. Le Frois would no doubt reject this same rationale in other situations
(one example is Irenaeus’ assertion in Against Heresies 2.22 that Christ
must have been over fifty years old when he died, and takes pains to tell us
that this is the “tradition” of all the elders and apostles. Would Le Frois
wish to indict Polycarp with this belief as well, since Irenaeus was the
disciple of Polycarp, who in turn was the disciple of the Apostle John?). Moreover,
Quodvultdeus’ words must be kept in context. These words are taken from a work
that attempts to show that types and figures permeate the biblical text. If one
is looking for a “type” in the symbolism of the woman who gives
birth to the Messiah in Revelation 12, one cannot help but see Mary. Yet even
here, Quodvultdeus is careful to distinguish the symbolism of the “dragon,”
which he says is the devil (i.e., John specifically identifies him as
such), and the “woman,” which he says “signifies” Mary who represents the church,
which Quodvultdeus sees as John’s true symbolism in this passage. In
other words, Quodvultdeus sees Mary not as the primary referent, but as a
derived referent only. This is far removed from the popular belief among
conservative Catholic scholars and apologists today that Marian symbolism is John’s
intent in this passage . . . Interestingly, Quodvultdeus (5th cent.) is the
first saint canonized by Rome to suggest that the Marian referent is a valid
one (though only in a secondary way). Even Oecumenius, the first true proponent
of the full-orbed Marian interpretation, is not considered a canonized father
of the church. Indeed, even in the list Le Frois provides, the only canonized
father in the first eight centuries to make mention of the Marian view (in
which Mary is the primary referent) is Epiphanius who may have actually rejected
the view. (Eric D. Svendsen, Who is My Mother? The Role and Status of
the Mother of Jesus in the New Testament and Roman Catholicism [Amityville,
N.Y.: Calvary Press, 2001], 229-30, 231)
On Epiphanius of Salamis, Svendsen is correct that he seems to reject the
Marian interpretation of Rev 12.
In
section 78 of the Panarion, entitled, "Against the
Antidicomarians" 11:2-6, Epiphanius of Salamis wrote the following:
If
any think <I> am mistaken, moreover, let them search through the
scriptures and neither find Mary's death, nor whether or not she died, nor
whether or not she was buried--even though John surely traveled throughout
Asia. And yet, nowhere does he say that he took the holy Virgin with him.
Scripture simply kept silence because of the overwhelming wonder, not to throw
men's minds into consternation. For I dare not say--though I have my
suspicions, I keep silent. Perhaps, just as her death is not to be found, so I
may have found some traces of the holy and blessed Virgin In one passage Simeon
says of her, "And a sword shall piece through thine own soul also, that the
thoughts of many hearts may be revealed." And elsewhere the Revelation of
John says, "And the dragon hastened after the woman who had born the man
child, and she was given the wings of an eagle and was taken to the wilderness,
that the dragon might not seize her." Perhaps this can be applied to her;
I cannot decide for certain, and am not saying that she remained immortal. But
neither am I affirming that she died. For scripture went beyond man's
understanding and left it in suspense with regard to the precious and choice
vessel, so that no one would suspect carnal behavior of her. Whether she did, I
don't know, and [even] if she was buried, she never had carnal relations,
perish the thought! Who will choose, from self-inflicted insanity, to cast a
blasphemous suspicion [on her], raise his voice, give free rein to his tongue,
flap his mouth with evil intent, invent insults instead of hymns and glory,
hurl abuse at the holy Virgin, and deny honor to the precious Vessel? (The
Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, Books II and III. De Fide [2d ed.;
trans. Frank Williams; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 2013], 624-25)
One
should note the lack of information about the end of Mary's life.
Notwithstanding Epiphanius often being cited as patristic support for the
Bodily Assumption of Mary, nowhere does Epiphanius affirm such as a dogmatic
belief of the Christian faith. Indeed, as the leading scholar on the origins
and development of the dormition and assumption traditions of Mary, Stephen
Shoemaker, noted on Epiphanius' understanding of the end of Mary's life:
This
long and profound silence surrounding Mary’s life first arouses concern only
late in the fourth century, when Epiphanius of Salamis pauses momentarily
during his energetic refutation of the heretics in the Panarion to
reflect on the disquieting fact that he can find no authorized tradition about
how the Virgin’s life ended. Despite Epiphanius’ close contacts with Palestine,
where the cult of the Virgin’s tomb would soon develop, he professes a complete
ignorance of the Virgin’s final days. This is not for want of searching,
however: Epiphanius reports that he has carefully investigated the matter and
uncovered several possibilities, but ultimately he cannot decide which of these
alternatives bears the truth. Epiphanius begins by addressing the biblical
tradition, apologizing that the Scriptures are silent on this matter ‘because
of the overwhelming wonder, not to throw men’s minds into consternation’.
Despite the apology, Epiphanius quickly turns to the New Testament for clues as
to how the Virgin’s earthly life may have come to a close. He first considers
Symeon’s prophecy that ‘a sword shall pierce your own soul too’, thinking that
this might suggest Mary’s death as a martyr. Then Epiphanius turns to chapter
12 of John’s Apocalypse, which describes ‘a woman clothed with the sun, with
the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of stars’, who gave birth to a
son. When attacked by ‘the dragon’, she was ‘given the two wings of the great
eagle, so that she could fly from the serpent into the wilderness, to her place
where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time’. His attacks
thwarted, the dragon then turns to persecute her children. This passage,
Epiphanius proposes, may indicate that Mary did not die as other human beings,
but somehow remained immortal, although he makes clear his own uncertainty and
refrains from advocating this view . . . Ultimately, Epiphanius cannot himself
decide if either of these two biblical traces is trustworthy, and, hedging his
bets, he concludes: ‘[I] am not saying that she remained immortal. But neither
am I affirming that she died’. This is in fact the general tenor of his entire
discussion of the matter: throughout he very carefully avoids endorsing any of
the possibilities he raises, merely noting their existence and some of the
evidence in favour of each position. This does not necessarily mean, however,
that when Epiphanius was completing his Panarion (c. 377)
there were as of yet no developed traditions about the end of the Virgin’s life
in circulation; it merely reveals that there was no authoritative or orthodox
tradition (in his view) to which he could turn. Quite the contrary, Epiphanius’
indecisive reflections themselves suggest that some difference of opinion had already
arisen among Christians as to whether Mary actually died or remained immortal,
a difference which Epiphanius could not resolve through recourse to either
biblical or church tradition. (Stephen J. Shoemaker, Ancient Traditions
of the Virgin Mary’s Dormition and Assumption [New York: Oxford
University Press, 2003], 11-12, 13-14)
