A short while ago, I wrote an article, Answering
Joe Heschmeyer's Deceptive Abuse of Mary Being the New Eve to Support Roman
Catholic Mariology. Funnily enough, an Eastern Orthodox apologist, Andrew
Harrison, “responded.”
For those who have interacted with Harrison before, it was typical of him:
ignorance of the Bible, patristics, made-up quotations, and a lot of bravado
masking his lack of intelligence. Here are a number of examples from his article:
Ignatius of Antioch
For example, he cites Ignatius of Antioch as evidence for
the pre-purification of Mary. He writes:
As one of the earliest
Christian writers, Ignatius links Mary’s purity to Christ’s triumph over sin.
In his Letter to the Ephesians 19.1, he writes,
“The virginity of Mary… was
hidden from the prince of this world.”
This near-apostolic
testimony—penned within decades of John’s Gospel—presents Mary’s virginity as a
divine mystery integral to the Incarnation. Sin would undermine this
concealment from Satan, suggesting her unique sanctity from the outset.
The problem for Harrison is that he just provided a quote-mine. The virginity of Mary was not the only "mystery". There were three in that text from the Ephesians. And nothing in the context supports Mary being free from personal sin, her being pre-purified, and so forth.
In his translation of Ignatius, To the Ephesians 19:1, Schoedel rendered the text as:
The virginity of Mary and her giving birth eluded the ruler of this age, likewise also the death of the Lord—three mysteries of a cry which were done in the stillness of God.
Commenting on this text, he wrote that:
We may assume that fundamental to the theme of the hiddenness of the events of salvation (19.1) was a sense of awe at the noiseless entrance of divinity into the world (cf. Cyril Jer. Catech. 12.9) and a feeling of wonder that the pride of power unexpectedly met its match in apparent weakness and defeat. Ignatius’ emphasis on the reality of Christ’s suffering may be taken as an extension of that attitude. Complications arise when the role of the evil one in such transactions becomes a matter for speculation. A passage in Paul already seems to refer to demonic powers who unwittingly work their own defeat by crucifying the Lord of glory (1 Cor 2:6–8). They knew something but not enough. Why?
Two answers recommended themselves in the early period. (a) The evil one knew from OT prophecy that the Christ was coming but was uncertain whether Jesus was the one. (b) The powers did not know with whom they were dealing when they persecuted Jesus since he eluded detection when he descended through the heavens. Ignatius’ language about the “economy” (Eph. 18.2; 20.1) and the “mysteries” (19.1) suggests a possible reference to the hidden purposes of God in the OT period. But reminiscences of the language of hidden descent seem to be stronger. Thus Ignatius’ reflections on the star (19.2–3) emphasize the cosmic dimensions of the event. And the treatment of the birth of Christ as miraculous and mysterious fits such a context. A noteworthy example is an interpolation of the Ascension of Isaiah (11.2–22): we are told just after the description of Christ’s painless (and almost non-physical) birth (11.2–15) that “this was hidden from all the heavens and all the princes and every god of this world” (11.16). Yet Ignatius does not actually describe the descent, and it is possible (c) that we are dealing with a more modest form of the theme in which the emphasis is on the events of salvation that take place here on earth and are hidden from the powers of darkness until the resurrection or ascension (cf. Justin Dial. 36.6). Apart from its present context the interpolation in the Ascension of Isaiah hardly says more. The text stresses the fact that Joseph continued as Mary’s husband externally, telling no one of the virgin birth, and that the birth itself took place while he and Mary were alone. Similarly, in an interpretation of Ignatius’ words, Origen (Hom. in Luc. 6) says that thanks to Joseph, Mary passed as a married woman and so escaped the notice of Satan. Jerome (Comm. in Matt. 1.18) repeats the point. Along the same lines, Hippolytus says that Jesus appeared in lowly human guise at his baptism ἵνα λάθῃ τοῦ δράκοντος τὸ πανούργημα “so that he might elude the wickedness of the dragon” (Theoph. 4). And in speaking of Jesus’ trial, the Sibylline Oracles (8.292–93) predict that Jesus “will remain silent” (σιγήσει) to prevent any from knowing who he is so that he might speak to the dead.
The three mysteries—Mary’s virginity and her child-bearing “likewise also” (ὁμοίως καί) the Lord’s death—clearly break down into two groups and as such correspond to the birth and the baptism-as-death at the end of the previous section (18.2). Thus there can be no emphasis on the number three. Elsewhere the expression ὁμοίως καί (Eph. 16.2; Pol. 5.1) emphatically affirms the relevance of what has just been said to another item. Thus Ignatius is not simply listing the events of Jesus’ life in chronological order; and if it seems best, we are free to think that he goes on in 19.2–3 to comment on the birth of Christ in particular. Three things favor this solution: (a) According to Eph. 20.1 Ignatius regards himself as just “getting into” (ἠρξάμην) his exposition of the divine “plan”; and it is likely that he began at the beginning with the incarnation, especially since he links the birth of Christ and the divine “plan” so closely in Eph. 18.2. (b) The expression “God being revealed as human” in Eph. 19.3 may have in view the earthly epiphany of Christ as a whole, but surely refers to the incarnation in particular (cf. Mag. 8.2); in any event, the present tense of the participle indicates that Christ’s manifestation in human form is thought of as contemporaneous with the shattering of the powers of evil; and such a statement seems out of place if Christ has just been described as having ascended and left this world behind. (c) The tradition about the star is more securely tied (as we shall see) with the Christmas story. Yet the birth and the passion were clearly linked in Ignatius’ mind, and here the older part of the Ascension of Isaiah may help us fill out the picture that Ignatius has left incomplete; for after the future descent of the Son is announced in heaven (9.12–13), the angel says, “and the god of that world will stretch forth his hand against the Son and they will lay hands on him and crucify him on a tree without knowing who he is; so his descent, as thou wilt see, is hidden from the heavens so that it remains unperceived who he is” (9.14–15). (William R. Schoedel, Ignatius of Antioch: A Commentary on the Letters of Ignatius of Antioch [Hermeneia—a Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985], 89–90)
Justin Martyr
Harrison quotes from Dialogue with Trypho 50 and 100 where Justin parallels Eve with Mary. Eve saying "yes" to a bad angel brought about the Fall, but Mary's "yes" brought salvation into the world. I acknowledged this in my original article. Furthermore, Harrison does not deal with any of the references elsewhere in Dialogue that teaches that the person of Jesus alone is free from sin. Again, to quote from Tatari and von Stosch on the issue:
In the Christian tradition, there are two different ways of understanding the Eve-Mary typology. The first more dynamic construction proceeds from the assumption that although Mary is affected to begin with by the consequences of the fall of man and therefore suffers from original sin, she later frees herself from its grip by giving birth to Jesus. In this line of thought, which represents the mainstream of the Syriac tradition, the typical Christocentricity of the biblical viewpoint is preserved. This is the construction that is clearly preferred by Ephrem the Syrian and Jacob of Serugh. The second, more static reading conceives of Mary as the new Eve, who is spared all along from the consequences of the fall. This understanding is nowhere to be found among the earliest Church Fathers, nor have we been able to verify that it appears anywhere in Syriac tradition. (Muna Tatari and Klaus von Stosch, Mary in the Qur’an: Friend of God, Virgin, Mother [trans. Peter Lewis; London: Gingko, 2021], 42-43)
Tertullian:
Harrison writes that "If there are contradictions, or if Boylan tries to argue using something else he said, it only proves Tertullian as an unfit source in this regard. He left the faith, and would be expected to have differing views." And yet he cannot provide any furor during Tertullian's time about his Mariology on this issue (also note: he wrote the portions I quoted before embracing Montanism). Again, just bluster.
Origen:
As always, Harrison does not deal with what I wrote concerning Origen. Now, it is true that in his Homily on Luke 6.7, Origen offered the following comments concerning Luke 1:28 and the angel Gabriel’s address to Mary:
The angel greeted Mary with a new address, which I could not find anywhere else in Scripture. I ought to explain this expression briefly. The angel says, “Hail, full of grace.” The Greek word is κεχαριτωμένη. I do not remember having read this word elsewhere in Scripture. An expression of this kind, “Hail, full of grace,” is not addressed to a male. This greeting was reserved for Mary alone. Mary knew the Law; she was holy, and had learned the writings of the prophets by meditating on them daily. If Mary had known that someone else had been greeted by words like these, she would never have been frightened by this strange greeting. Hence the angel says to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary! You have found grace in God’s eyes. Behold, you will conceive in your womb. You will bear a son, and you will name him ‘Jesus.’ He will be great, and will be called ‘Son of the Most High.’ ” (Origen, Homilies on Luke and Fragments on Luke [trans. Joseph T. Lienhard; The Fathers of the Church 94; Washington, D. C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2009], 26)
Unfortunately, the Greek does not appear to be extant. There is a Latin text, however:
Quia vero angelus novo sermone Mariam salutavit, quem in omni Scriptura invenire non potui, et de hoc pauca dicenda sunt Id enim quod ait: Ave, gratia plena, quod Græce dicitar, κεχαριτωμενη, ubi in Scripturis alibi legerim non recordor; sed neque ad virum istiusmodi sermo esl, Salve, gratia plena. Soli Maria haec salutatio servatur. Si enim scisset Maria et ad alium quempiam similem factum esse sermonem, habebat quippe legis scientiam, et erat sancta, et prophetarom raticinia quotidiana meditatione cognoverat, nuuquam quasi peregrina eam salutatio terruisseL Propter quod loquitur ei angelus: Ne timeas, Maria, invenisti enim gratiam coram Domino. Ecec concipies in utero, et paries filium, et vocabis nomen ejus Jesum. Is erit magnus, et Filius Altissimi vocabitur. (PG 13:1815-16)
An alternative translation would be:
For truly the angel greeted Mary with a new kind of address—a form I could find nowhere in all of Scripture—and a few words must be said about this. For the phrase “Hail, full of grace” (rendered in Greek as κεχαριτωμενη), which I do not recall appearing elsewhere in the Scriptures, is not a greeting ever given to any man. It is reserved solely for Mary. For if Mary had known that a similar address had been given to any other person—since she possessed the knowledge of the Law, was holy, and through her daily meditation on the writings of the prophets had recognized its meaning—this greeting would never have struck her as something strange. Therefore the angel says to her: “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with the Lord. You will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High.”
For a previous use of the perfect passive participle form of χαριτοω in Origen, see the discussion of Fragments in the Gospel of John XI (concerning John 1:16).
The perfect passive participle form of χαριτοω was used for men, not simply women, in both the LXX and other Greek sources. See, for e.g.:
χαριτοω and Luke 1:28 and Sirach 18:17 in the Brill Dictionary of Ancient Greek (cf. Bullard and Hatton (UBS Handbook) on Sirach 18:17)
χαριτοω in the perfect participle form in Symmachus's version of Psalm 17:27 (English 18:26)
χαριτοω in the perfect passive participle form in John Chrysostom, Fragments in Proverbs, chapter 25
χαριτοω in the perfect passive participle form in Acts of Philip 48
French Catholic Mariologists Henri Crouzel, François Fournier, and Pierre Périchon concede that, in Origen's Mariology, Mary was not always without fault/sin.
Marie cependant n'est pas tout à fait sans faute.
Origène ne croit pas la Vierge exempte de toute faute : ce n'est d'ailleurs le cas d'aucun spirituel, tant qu'il vit ici-bas. Elle a eu des défaillances sous le rapport de la foi. Certes l'Alexandrin est loin de prétendre, comme Tertullien, qu'elle aurait été reniée par son Fils pour cela ; comment Jésus aurait-il rejeté celle que l'Esprit-Saint avait déclarée bénie entre toutes les femmes ? Ce qu'Origène dit de la sainteté de la Vierge et qui lui fournit la preuve de sa virginité perpétuelle écarte l'idée d'une faute grave.
Il semble insinuer dans l'Homélie I sur la Genèse que la question de Marie à l'ange : « Comment cela se fera-t-il, car je ne connais point d'homme? »manifeste une certaine incré- dulité. Dans l'Homélie XX sur Luc, il interprète par une exé- gèse allégorique toute gratuite la redescente de Jésus vers Nazareth en compagnie de ses parents : « Parce que Joseph et Maric n'avaient pas encore une foi entière et ne pouvaient rester en haut avec lui . » Leur Fils les accompagne, de même qu'il ne demeure pas toujours sur la montagne de la Transfiguration, mais qu'il va dans la plaine soigner les malades et éduquer les enfants spirituels, puisque c'est là le sens de son Incarnation. Origène n'a ici comme argument que l'interprétation ordinaire qu'il donne aux montées et aux descentes.
Un autre texte présente des raisons théologiquement plus sérieuses, quoique aussi gratuites. Le glaive de douleur qui, selon la prophétie de Siméon, transpercera à la Passion l'âme de Marie, c'est, d'apres l'Homélie XVII sur Luc, celui du doute. Un premier raisonnement, qui est a fortiori, suppose que la Mere du Seigneur n'est pas plus parfaite que les Apôtres : si ces derniers, suivant la parole de Jésus, ont ete scandalises, au point que Pierre lui-même l'a renié trois fois, comment ne l'aurait-elle pas été elle aussi ? Puis un second argument intervient. Selon Paul tous ont peche et ont besoin de rédemption : si elle n'a pas souffert de scan- dale, alors Jesus n'est pas mort pour elle. L'origine de ce doute est facile à comprendre : c'est le contraste entre les révélations merveilleuses qu'elle a eues sur son Fils et l'état où elle le voit. Et ce moment de defaillance sera court. D'après un fragment sur Luc ' la prophétie de Siméon indique à mots couverts « qu'après le scandale que les disciples et Marie souffriront devant la Croix, une guérison rapide interviendra : elle raffermira dans leurs cœurs la foi qu'ils ont en lui ».
L'Alexandrin ne se base donc pas sur l'interpretation obvie d'un passage de l'Écriture : rien ne dit que le glaive désigne le doute, et la parole du Christ citée plus haut ne s'adresse qu'aux Apôtres. Le second argument s'appuie sur un point de foi, l'universalité de la Rédemption. Origène ne voit pas comment la concilier avec l'absence de toute faute en Marie, comme dans la suite des temps d'autres grands théologiens la jugeront incompatible avec l'Imma- culée Conception : il ne comprend pas que la Vierge ait pu recevoir ce privilège des mérites de son Fils, et rester ainsi soumise à la Rédemption universelle. (Henri Crouzel, François Fournier, and Pierre Périchon, “Introduction,” in Origène, Homélies Sur S. Luc : Texte Latin Et Fragments Grecs–Introduction, Traduction Et Notes [Sources Chrétiennes 87 ; Latour-Maubourg : Paris, 1962], 55-57)
English translation:
Mary, however, is not entirely without fault [RB: the French can also mean “sin” and “transgression”].
Origen does not believe that the Virgin is free from all error—indeed, no spiritual person is, as long as they live on earth. She experienced shortcomings in matters of faith. Certainly, the Alexandrian is far from claiming, as Tertullian did, that she was renounced by her Son because of this; how could Jesus have rejected the one whom the Holy Spirit had declared blessed among all women? What Origen asserts about the Virgin’s holiness—and which provides him with the proof of her perpetual virginity—dismisses the idea of any grave fault.
It appears that in Homily I on Genesis he suggests that Mary’s question to the angel—“How will this be, since I do not know a man?”—reveals a certain incredulity. In Homily XX on Luke, he offers a completely gratuitous allegorical exegesis of Jesus’ descent to Nazareth with his parents: “Because Joseph and Mary had not yet attained a complete faith and could not remain above with him.” Their Son accompanies them, just as he does not remain perpetually on the mountain of the Transfiguration but goes into the plain to heal the sick and instruct spiritual children—since that is the very meaning of his Incarnation. In this passage, Origen relies solely on his conventional interpretation of ascents and descents.
Another text presents reasons that are theologically more serious, although also gratuitous. The sword of sorrow that, according to Simeon’s prophecy, will pierce Mary’s soul at the Passion is, according to Homily XVII on Luke, that of doubt. One line of reasoning, which is a fortiori, assumes that the Mother of the Lord is no more perfect than the Apostles: if the latter, following Jesus’ words, were scandalized—so much so that even Peter denied him three times—how could she not have been as well? Then a second argument comes into play. According to Paul, all have sinned and are in need of redemption: if she had not suffered scandal, then Jesus did not die for her. The origin of this doubt is easy to understand: it is the contrast between the marvelous revelations she received about her Son and the state in which she sees him. And this moment of failure will be brief. According to a fragment on Luke, Simeon’s prophecy hints, in veiled words, “that after the scandal which the disciples and Mary will endure before the Cross, a rapid healing will occur: it will strengthen in their hearts the faith they have in him.”
The Alexandrian does not therefore rely on the obvious interpretation of a passage of Scripture: nothing indicates that the sword symbolizes doubt, and the aforementioned words of Christ are addressed solely to the Apostles. The second argument is based on a point of faith—the universality of Redemption. Origen cannot see how this can be reconciled with the complete absence of any fault in Mary, as later, other great theologians would judge incompatible with the Immaculate Conception: he does not understand how the Virgin could have received this privilege through the merits of her Son, and yet remain subject to universal Redemption.
Made up quotations
Harrison shows he is not just dim, but a fraud. How so? He makes up quotations.
Ephrem:
Harrison claims that Ephrem taught that Mary “Mary bore the silent Word, pure and untouched by any stain of sin.” The problem is that (1) his purported source, Hymns on the Nativity 11.6 does not say this and (2) there is nothing from Ephrem's works that teaches this. Nothing. This is a made-up quote. For those curious, this is how McKey renders Hymns on the Nativity 11.6:
A wonder if Your mother: The Lord entered her
and became a servant; He entered able to speak
and He became silent in her; He entered her thundering
and His voice grew silent; He entered Shepherd of all;
a lamb he came in her; He emerged bleating. (p. 132)
Harrison, per his MO, does not teach with what I provided from Ephrem (or any of the patristics, really: and we know why: he cannot). Instead, he falsely claimed that I ignored "Ephrem’s Carmen Nisib. 27" when I quoted it and Ott's appeal thereto to support Catholic dogma. Either Harrison has a learning disability and/or he is a fraud.
Jeroslav Pelikan:
Continuing his fraud, Harrison makes up a quotation, this time from a modern author, Jeroslav Pelikan:
As Jaroslav Pelikan observes in The Christian Tradition (Vol. 3),
“Chrysostom’s rhetorical style occasionally obscures his alignment with the Church’s growing Marian devotion, but his theology remains consistent with it.”
No such quotation appears in any of the volumes of the 5-volume The Christian Tradition nor does it appear in any other work by Pelikan, including his two volumes dedicated to Mariology. Again, another instance of Harrison's fraud.
Arguing from Silence
Harrison does not understand how an argument from silence works, nor my appeal thereto. I never once claimed if patristic author "X" was silent about a doctrine, they did not believe it. My appeal to an argument from silence (and any one trained in history, for that matter) is much more nuanced. In the cast of Justin, if Justin is saying that Jesus alone is exempt from all sin, claims all people everywhere with the exception of Jesus is condemned for committing personal sin, and then brings up Mary in the context of Jesus being alone free from person sin, then maybe one can conclude he did not think Mary was sinless and he was unaware of this supposedly apostolic tradition teaching otherwise?
Of course, Harrison, who is not a smart person, will struggle with anything that needs nuance to understand.
Alleged Strawman: Is The New Eve Typology All Rome Has?
Harrison claims that "He misframes the New Eve typology as Heschmeyer’s sole proof, when it’s one thread in a broader tapestry of scripture and tradition." The focus of Heschmeyer's video was Mary as New/Second Eve in the patristics. That is why I focused on that. I am more than well aware of Luke 1:28; Gen 3:15; Mary as the New Ark, and other evidences. In fact, I have written a great deal on these issues, including finding other instances of χαριτοω in the perfect passive participle form in Greek literature outside of Luke 1:28, such as:
χαριτοω in the perfect participle form in Symmachus's version of Psalm 17:27 (English 18:26)
χαριτοω in the perfect passive participle form in John Chrysostom, Fragments in Proverbs, chapter 25
χαριτοω in the perfect passive participle form in Acts of Philip 48
The Use of χαριτοω in BGU 1026 (fourth/fifth century)
Conclusion:
Andrew Harrison failed to make a dent on my original article. This sampling shows that (1) he has not read the patristics, but relies on proof-texts (so his claim I am guilty of this is projection); (2) he is a conscious fraud as he made up whole-cloth quotes from the patristics (Ephrem) and scholars (Pelikan) to make his case and (3) fails to deal with the totality of a patristic author's Mariology (for e.g., he does not exegete any of the works from Ephrem I referenced, and falsely claimed I ignored a source from Ephrem).
Again, I would just suggest readers to peruse my original article and check it out for yourselves:
Answering Joe Heschmeyer's Deceptive Abuse of Mary Being the New Eve to Support Roman Catholic Mariology
To Support this Blog:
Patreon
Paypal
Venmo
Amazon Wishlist
Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com
Email for Logos.com Gift Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com
