Wednesday, April 19, 2023

Hans von Campenhausen on the late development of Mary's Physical Virginity Post-Partum

  

Perhaps the first western to describe circumstantially the miraculous painless birth and Mary’s perpetual physical intactness is Zeno of Verona in his sermons delivered in 362-72. In these he obviously depends on the account in the Protoevangelium of James, but he already shows the characteristic emphasis on the three phases of the virginity set side by side: ‘ceterum fuit illa uirgo post connubium, uirgo post conceptum, urigo post filium’ (Tract. I 5.3; cf. II 8.2).

 

It is usual in this context to refer to Hilary of Poitiers. Even Hugh Koch (Adhuc Virgo, p. 29) is of the opinion that De trinitate III 19 (PL 10, 87) assumes the virginitas in partu, with which Hilary had obviously become acquainted ‘during his involuntary stay in the East (356-359)’. ‘According to the whole connected sequence—it speaks of the Father’s having suffered no damnum through the begetting of the Son—the virginitas in partu is certainly not meant alone, or even primarily; but it is meant to be included.’ Now is may certainly be dangerous to argue on the basis of a text on which no critical edition is yet available; but I think I can show that even thus cautious formulation by Koch goes too far.

 

In the assertions under discussion it is, in fact, indispensable to consider ‘the whole connected sequence’ if we are to understand them properly. Taking up an anti-Arian position, Hilary first emphasizes that in the Son the whole fullness of the Father dwelt bodily (Col. 2.9) (III 15), and that according to John 17.4 the father was first revealed to us through him (III 16). ‘Nam deum nemo noscit, nisi confiteatur et patrem unigeniti filii et filium non de portione aut dilation aut emission, sed ex exo natum inenarrabiliter, incomprehensibiliter ut filium a patre plenitudinem diuinitatis, ex qua et in qua natus est, obtinentem, uerum et infinitum et perfectum deum; haec enim Dei est plenitudo’ (III 17). The point is that this inexpressible birth should be believed. The Son himself performed his miracle on earth—the changing of water into wine and the feeding of the multitude are specially mentioned—in order to make us certain about the birth: ‘iolens itaque filius huius natiuitatis suae fidem facere factorum suorum nobis posuit exemplum ut per inenarrabilium gestorum suorum inenarrabilem efficientiam de uirtute natiuitatis doceremur.’ A direct perception of the divine mystery is denied to us, ‘quibus intelligentia ad conspicabiles res et corporeas coarctatur’; but if we hold to the visible miracle, we can also affirm the incomprehensible. For the Son is the Father’s image: ‘cum enim sensu atque uerbis imaginem apprehendimus, necesse est etiam eum, cuus imago est, consequamur.’ But we do not cease to make our foolish and wicked demands for the invisible, ‘quomodo filius et unde filius et quo damno patris uel ex qua portione sit natus’, instead of keeping to the evidential exempla operationum (III 18). Instead of embarking o those injudicious questions, one should therefore cite further miracles which elucidate them indirectly, and which, although just as incomprehensible, were actually experienced in Jesus’ life: ‘quaeris, quomodo secundum spirtum natus sit filius; ergo te de corporeis rebus interrogo’ (III 19).

 

So far the context is clear; we must simply not bring the ‘secundum spiritum’ (κατα πνευμα) into contact with the virgin birth through the Spirit, but must always relate the words into the divine eternal birth of the Son from the Father. This holds good in just the same way for the further example of the passage of Christ’s risen body through the closed doors (John 20.19). This picture is eagerly brought in later to illuminate the miracles of the uterus clausus; the earliest western example that I know of is in Rufinus, Comm. symb. 9. In the relevant passage, however, the miracle is again used only to give mundane corroboration of the supramundane miracle of the divine birth: ‘adstitit dominus clauso domo in medio discipulorum—et filius est natus ex patre, noli negare, quod steterit, quia per intelligentiae infirmitatem consistentis non consequaris introitum—noli nescire, quod ab ingenito et perfecto deo patre unigenitus et perfectus filius deus natus sit, quia sensum et sermonem umanae naturae uirtus generationis excedat’ (III 20).

 

Now in between there is in III 19 a short section which also brings in Jesus’ virgin birth as a further earthly miracle that is to substantiate the miracle of the divine birth. This view again put the closing formula beyond doubt: ‘et quidem fas esset, non imossibile in deo opinari, quod per uirtutem eius possible fuisse in homine cognoscimus.’ But in what does the analogy of the miraculous between the heavenly and the earthly birth consist? Obviously in this: that just as God experienced no diminution through the begetting of a son, although he had brought him forth out of his own nature, so Mary had no co-operation from a man, and yet brought forth a complete human being without thereby diminishing her own nature: ‘et certe non suscepit, quod edidit, sed caro carnem sine elementorum nostorum pudore prouexit et perfectum  ipsa de suis non imminuta generauit.’ There is no meditation here on the detailed circumstances of a supposedly painless birth without loss of blood and so on; the point of the miracle is rather that Mary ‘received’ nothing from outside and could yet, as a complete human bring, bring forth a complete human being. The phrase ‘sine elementorum nostrorum pudore’ refers to the sexual act which otherwise is necessary for the begetting of a human being, but which here did not take place; cf. Tract. psalm. LXVII (Zingerle, CSEL, 22 [1891], 301): ‘quia ipsae illae corporum et elementorum nostorum originies sint pudendae.’ I cannot find according to this, as Koch claims, op cit. 29, n. 1, that in particular Tertullian’s view ‘that this process of Jesus’ birth in relation to the pudenda did not differ from other births (Adv. Marc. III 11; IV 21; De carne Christi 4)’ was negatived in the sense of a virginitas in partu. For up to now our text has not been at all about a virginitas in partu. It is a question now whether this was so in the preceding sentence that connects with the introductory secudum spiritum natus sit filius; ego te de corporeis rebus interrogo. non (?) quaero, quomodo natus ex uirgine sit, an detrimentum sui caro perfactam ex se carnem generans perpessa sit. et certe non suscepit’, etc. It is a question whether the ‘non’ of the traditional text can remain, and in my opinion that is not the case. But even if we keep the negation, the sentence still does not contain the clear affirmation of a virginitas in partu idea that one would like to find in it. Let us substantiate this first.

 

Non quaero—that means therefore, that Hilary has no wish to discuss in greater detail the mysteries, the quomodo, of the virgin birth from Mary. Especially he does not with to go into the question whether or her ‘flesh’ suffered injury through it. That would mean, in my opinion, that Hilary as well as Zeno soon afterwards, already knows the Greek story of the miraculous birth in the Protoevangelium of James, but that—as was once the case with Clement of Alexandria . . . –he does not want to enter into a more detailed discussion of those statements. Such an attitude would be all the more understandable, as the comparison would hardly have yielded anything serviceable for what he had in mind; for the ‘damnum’ of a diminution of God’s substance as father does not provide a good comparison with the injury done to a virgin’s body through a birth. What is conclusive is that a new complete Being appears beside the old one without the latter’s having become ‘less’ on that account or having received anything from outside. One could therefore hardly say, even if the traditional text were retained, that the virginitas in partu is ‘meant to be included’ in this passage. Rather is it left aside without discussion, asking a question that Hilary will not tackle, while, apart from this passage, he has nowhere even touched on it.

 

Really, however, in spite of the Maurists’ objection, we must agree with Lipsius who would delete the ‘non’. Only thus do we get a completely plain and coherent argument without unnecessary sidelong glances, and the steady and impressive contrasting of the earthly with the incomprehensible heavenly event is preserved. In contrast to the ‘speculating’ Arians Hilary will not speak of high and heavenly things, but contents himself with looking at the miracle of Christ’s earthly birth. Here, too, it came about that a being—Mary—brought forth from herself a second Being, although—in contrast to what is ordinarily necessary—nothing came to her for this from outside; yet she remained while in herself—not uninjured in the physical sense; and that exactly corresponds to the miracle of the heavenly birth of the Logos from God, about whom also we are therefore to have no doubts. If this text and its exposition are correct, therefore, Hilary must be entirely eliminated as an early western witness or the idea of a virginitas in partu. (Hans von Campenhausen, The Virgin Birth in the Theology of the Ancient Church [trans. Frank Clarke; Eugene, Oreg.: Wipf and Stock, 2011; repr., London: SCM Press, 1954], 73-75 n. 1)