Sunday, August 16, 2020

Quodvultdeus and Epiphanius on the Marian Interpretation of the "Woman" in Revelation 12

 

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)