Saturday, January 15, 2022

James Puthuparampil, "Mariological Thought of Mar Jacob of Serugh (451-521)": Jacob of Serugh is a Witness Against the Immaculate Conception

 In interpreting Jacob of Serug's expression that Mary was "without blemish," we are cautioned that

 

When we read carefully the original text, we understand that an interpretation of this text in favour of Mary’s exclusion from original sin is not plausible. There is no ambiguity in the Syriac text in this respect. Mary is spoken of as humble, pure, limpid and “without blemish" (Jacob of Serugh, On the Virgin, ET by M. Hansbury, 23) It is the Syriac expression, dlo mumo, that is translated as immacolata in Italian and “without blemish” in English. J. Payne Smith gives the following meanings for dlo mumo lit: flawless, faultless and unblemished (J. Payne Smith, A Compendious Syriac Dictionary, 258). Hence the textual evidence is far from the truth in assuming even “implicitly” her exception from original sin and the taking for granted that it corresponds to the concept of the Immaculate Conception. (James Puthuparampil, Mariological Thought of Mar Jacob of Serugh (451-521) [MŌRĀN 'ETH'Ō Series 25; Kerala, India: St. Ephrem Ecumenical Research Institute, 2005], 84-85)

 

Elsewhere, we read of the overwhelming evidence from Jacob of Serugh’s own writings against the Immaculate Conception:

 

Many modern scholars try to see, in the writings of the early Church Fathers, the concept of the Immaculate Conception. This attempt seems to be quite arbitrary. For instance, when Mar Jacob spoke about the holiness of Mary, he did not use the same concept as in the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. Mar Jacob’s understanding of her holiness can be delineated as 1) her holiness is in comparison with the rest of humanity, 2) this is in connection with her divine motherhood 3) the basis of her holiness is her cooperation to God’s grace. . . . The Dogma of the Immaculate Conception differs from Mar Jacob’s understanding of Mary’s holiness in two aspects. The first is that he did not speak about Mary as being preserved immune from all stain of original sin. Instead, he presented her as the most pleasing one before God: “how exalted and pure from evil, nor stirs in her an impulse inclined to lust” (Jacob of Serugh, On the Virgin, ET by M. Hansbury, 23). Mar Jacob further describes how Mary had prepared herself so as to be the most pleasing one before God:

 

And she allows no thought for luxury,

nor worldly conversation which causes cruel harm.

Desire for worldly vanity does not burn in her,

nor is she occupied with childish things. (Jacob of Serugh, On the Virgin, ET by M. Hansbury, 23)

 

The second difference is that her holiness is presented as a result of the exercise of Mary’s free will. Mar Jacob presented Mary as the one who pleased God with her life. We quote three passages which point to the perfection that she achieved as a result of her free will.

 

This is beauty, when one is beautiful of one’s own accord; glorious graces of perfection are in her will.

However great be the beauty of something from God, it is not acclaimed if freedom is not present. (Jacob of Serugh, On the Virgin, ET by M. Hansbury, 25)

 

She was most fair both in her nature and in her will, because she was not sullied with displeasing desires.

From her childhood, she stood firm in unblemished

uprightness;

she walked in the way without offenses.

Her original nature was preserved with a will for good things because there were always tokens of virginity in her body and

holy things in her soul. (Jacob of Serugh, On the Virgin, ET by M. Hansbury,24)

 

He chose for himself a virgin who was betrothed and

preserved;

she was holy, modest, and vigilant.

He descended and dwelt in the blessed one, most fair;

her womb was sealed, her body was holy, and her soul was

limpid. (Jacob of Serugh, On the Virgin, ET by M. Hansbury, 44)

 

We may sum up the difference between the Dogma and Mar Jacob’s understanding in the following way: the dogma emphasizes Mary’s immunity from the stains of sin from the moment of her conception in her mother’s womb, while Mar Jacob presents Mary as the most faithful daughter of God who pleased God by her obedience to the Law. For he writes:

 

She did not turn aside from the justice which is in the Law,

and neither carnal nor bodily desire disturbed her. (Jacob of Serugh, On the Virgin, ET by M. Hansbury, 24)

 

Mar Jacob spoke about the personal integrity of Mary in that she as a wife, mother and virgin, was holy. The descent of the Holy Spirit upon Mary, according to Mar Jacob, was “to let loose from her the former sentence of Eve and Adam.” (Jacob of Serugh, On the Virgin, ET by M. Hansbury, 34) Mary’s purification was necessary for the Son of God to assume a body without sin. Mar Jacob’s exegesis of Luke 1:35 makes a distinction between the “Spirit” and the “Power of God.” The Holy Spirit had “sanctified” her and “purified” her in order that “He might take from her a pure body without sin.” (Jacob of Serugh, On the Virgin, ET by M. Hansbury, 35) Let us listen to Mar Jacob’s own words:

 

He sanctified her, purified her and made her blessed among

women;

He freed her from that curse of sufferings on account of Eve,

her mother.

 

[...]

 

The Spirit freed her from that debt that she might be beyond transgression when He solemnly dwelt in her.

He purified the Mother by the Holy Spirit while dwelling in

her,

that He might take from her a pure body without sin.

Lest the body with which He clothed Himself according to

nature be sullied,

He purified the Virgin by the Holy Spirit and then dwelt in

her.

The Son of God wanted to be related to her,

and first He made her body without sin.

The Word had descended that He might become flesh; on this

account,

by the Spirit He purified the one from whom He had become

flesh,

so that He might become like us in everything when He

descended, except for this: that his pure body is without sin. (Jacob of Serugh, On the Virgin, ET by M. Hansbury, 34-35)

 

The above passage is Mar Jacob’s explanation of “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; [...]” (Lk 1:35). Mary had achieved in her life all the perfection, and holiness that one can achieve through one’s effort, of which he says: “She rose up to this measure on her own, until the Spirit, that perfecter of all came to her" (Jacob of Serugh, On the Virgin, ET by M. Hansbury, 38). He believed that Mary had achieved perfection before the angel came to her. The following lines make this clearer:

 

He [God] searched her and found humility and holiness in her,

and limpid impulses and a soul desirous of divinity.

And a pure heart and every reckoning of perfection,

because of this He chose her, the pure and most fair one. (Jacob of Serugh, On the Virgin, ET by M. Hansbury, 23)

 

Mar Jacob, through this passage illustrates that Mary was holy even before the angel brought God’s message to her. Mary is an ordinary human being, whom the Father deemed worthy, on account of what she was. Hence her holiness becomes the spiritual aspect of her virginity. (Ibid., 177-81)

 

With respect to the phrase "“He might take from her a pure body without sin," we read the following in a footnote:

 

In the sense of purification Mar Jacob uses different Syriac words: mrāq, zalal, and dekya. The word mrāq gives the meaning of purifying, polishing and cleansing. Cf. J. Payne Smith, A Compendious Dictionary, 303. In the Pael form, zālel means to draw from the lees, to fine, free from the dross etc. Cf. J. Payne Smith, A Compendious Dictionary, 478. Dekya in pael form means to cleanse, purify, pronounce clean according to the ceremonial law. The Syriac word used for sanctification is qādeš. In Pael form qādeš means to keep or render holy, to hallow, sanctify, consecrate, to set apart for holy use, to celebrate holy rites, to give in marriage; to chant the Tersanctus cry ‘Holy, Holy, Holy.’ Cf. J. Payne Smith, A Compendious Dictionary, 491. (Ibid., 179 n. 84)

 

Jacob of Serugh is another patristic witness against the Immaculate Conception being apostolic in origin.

Blog Archive