Helvidius, Jovinian, and the Virginity of Mary

Helvidius, Jovinian, and the Virginity of Mary in Late Fourth-Century Rome David G. Hunter Journal of Early Christian Studies, Volume 1, Number 1, Spring 1993, pp. 47-71 (Article) Published by The Johns Hopkins University Press DOI: 10.1353/earl.0.0147 For additional information about this article http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/earl/summary/v001/1.1.hunter.html Access Provided by University of Kentucky at 01/19/13 2:50PM GMT Helvidius, Jovinian, and the Virginity of Mary in Late Fourth-Century Rome DAVID G. HUNTER Marian doctrine and ascetical theology become increasingly intertwined in the late fourth century West, especially in the writings of Ambrose and Jerome. Helvidius and Jovinian are two Christians who oppose these new developments. Helvidius rejects the doctrine of Mary's virginitas post partum; Jovinian rejects her virginitas in partu. For both, the Marian teachings represent faulty notions of sin, sexuality and the church. When compared to the ideas of earlier writers, the positions of Helvidius and Jovinian appear to be remarkably consonant with earlier Christian tradition. One of the more striking features of the ascetic movement in the West at the end of the fourth century is the manner in which it spawned a new form of devotion to the virgin Mary.1 Western writers, most notably Ambrose, bishop of Milan, fastened on certain ideas, such as the perpetual virginity of Mary after the birth of Jesus (virginitas post partum) and the virginity of Mary in the process of giving birth (virginitas in partu), to exhort their followers to adopt an ascetic life.2 Mary "ever-virgin" became, in the 1. This paper was originally delivered at the Oxford International Conference on Patristic Studies, 1991, under the title, "The Anti-Ascetic Argument in the Late Fourth Century." I am grateful to those who attended the session and provided helpful comments. 1 also wish to express my thanks to Elizabeth A. Clark and Robert L. Wilken who read the manuscript and offered expert criticism. 2. A reliable survey of Ambrose's views can be found in Charles W. Neumann, The Virgin Mary in the Works of Saint Ambrose, Paradosis 17 (Fribourg: The University Press, 1962). On the development of Marian theology more generally, see Hilda Graef, Mary. A History of Doctrine and Devotion, (London and New York: Sheed and Ward, 1963), vol. 1, 77-100; also Hans von Campenhausen, The Virgin Birth in the Theology of the Ancient Church, SHT 2 (London: SCM, 1964), 53-70. Journal of Early Christian Studies 1:1,47-71 © 1993 The Johns Hopkins University Press. 48 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES theology of Saint Ambrose, a model for the life-long celibacy of the consecrated virgin. Her virginal integrity, as Peter Brown has suggested, became a potent symbol of the repudiation of all "commingling" with sexuality, sin, and even secular society.3 It must never be forgotten, however, that Ambrose's position was not the only Christian one. During the last two decades of the fourth century, particularly at Rome, there was widespread and outspoken opposition to the ascetic ideals being propagated by writers such as Jerome and Am- brose. Just as ascetic piety often expressed itself in Marian devotion, so resistance to the ascetic ideal at times took the form of objection to Marian doctrine. In this essay I will focus on two writers, Helvidius and Jovinian, who were among the most vocal critics of the ascetic movement. Not only did these authors challenge many of the claims of the ascetic leaders, but they also chose (though in different ways) to criticize certain aspects of Marian doctrine as it was being developed in the West at this time. For both the ascetic and the non-ascetic teachers, Mary's virginity came to symbolize different notions of sin, sexuality, and the church. PART ONE: THE POLEMIC OF HELVIDIUS Sometime late in the year 383, Jerome was asked by a group of Christians at Rome, probably fellow ascetics, to write a work in response to a treatise by one Helvidius. Jerome hesitated, so he tells us, for he did not wish to give the views of Helvidius more circulation than they deserved. Nevertheless, because so many of the "brothers" were being scandalized by Helvidius' teaching, Jerome says, he reluctantly agreed to take up the axe of the Gospel and to demolish the barren tree. The result was the first treatise in Christian history devoted solely to defending the perpetual virginity of Mary.4 What is evident immediately from Jerome's work is that Helvidius himself had written in response to someone named Carterius.5 Carterius had 3. For this "social" reading of Ambrose's Marian theology, see Peter Brown, The Body and Society. Men, Women, and Sexual Renunciation in Early Christianity (New York: Columbia University Press, 1988), 353-355. 4. Jerome, HeIv. 1 (PL 23.193-194). For the dating of the work, see J. N. D. Kelly, Jerome. His Life, Writings, and Controversies (New York: Harper and Row, 1975), 104-105. For a fine attempt to reconstruct the viewpoint of Helvidius, see G. Jousssard, "La personnalité d'Helvidius," Mélanges J. Saunier (Lyon, 1944), 139-156. 5. Carterius is mentioned by name in HeIv. 16 and is addressed directly in a quotation from Helvidius which Jerome cites in HeIv. 4. HUNTER/HELVIDIUS, JOVINIAN, ON MARY'S VIRGINITY 49 written a pamphlet arguing that the virginal life was superior to the married life. Such a notion, of course, was nothing new. What was new was Carterius' argument that the perpetual virginity of Mary was proof of the superiority of virginity over marriage. It was this latter issue, and not concern over Mary's virginity per se, that appears to have lain at the heart of Carterius's little tract and which, therefore, was the main object of Helvidius' response. It is important to grasp the initial impulse behind Helvidius' work. Like Jovinian in the following decade, Helvidius did not attack the practice of virginity itself; he simply maintained the strict equality of marriage and virginity. "Virgins and married women are equally glorious," he wrote, in a excerpt quoted by Jerome.6 Helvidius' denial of Mary's perpetual virginity seems to have followed from this position: Mary was not, as in Carterius' view, solely a model for virgins. Rather, she was a virgin, as well as a spouse; in respect to the conception of Jesus, and until his birth, Mary was a virgin. But afterwards she lived a normal married life with her husband Joseph and was a model of marital virtue.7 The ecclesial implications of Helvidius' appeal to Mary as virgin and married woman must be stressed. Helvidius saw that an emphasis on Mary as ever-virgin resulted in a symbol that was essentially exclusive: Mary as a model for virgins, not for all Christians. Against this perspective Helvidius proposed a more inclusive symbol: Mary as the harmonious model of both the celibate and the married lives. Helvidius must have recognized the potency of Mary as a symbol of ascetic piety. As we will see below, both Ambrose and Jerome had recently begun to use Mary as a model of the consecrated virgin in their ascetical discourses. Helvidius did not wish totally to exclude the ascetical dimension of Marian symbolism, but only to broaden its scope to embrace the life of married Christians as well. Naturally, Helvidius could not be content simply with asserting that Mary had married and produced children in the normal way. He had to argue it on cogent historical and theological grounds, which he promptly did. Helvidius cited a variety of New Testament passages which seemed to imply that Mary and Joseph had sexual relations. For example: Matthew 1:18 (" . . . before they came together she was found to be with child") and Matthew 1:25 (" . . . and [Joseph] had no marital relations with her until she had borne a son"). He also referred to the many texts of the New 6.He^. 22 (PL 23.216). 7. Jouassard, "La personnalité," 145. 50 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES Testament which speak of Jesus' "brothers" (Luke 2:7, Matthew 12:46, John 2:12 and 7:3—5, Acts 1:14 and 13:55, etc.). Furthermore, Helvidius supported his views with quotations from earlier Western writers, such as Tertullian and Victorinus of Pettau, who shared his understanding of Jesus' siblings.8 According to Jerome, Helvidius marshalled such an impressive array of evidence both from scripture and from tradition that he accomplished his aim and won many adherents, even among committed ascetics.9 Helvidius concluded his work with a comparison of marriage and virginity. He appealed to the example of the Old Testament patriarchs who were married: "Are virgins better than Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who had wives?" he asked. Helvidius also argued, like Clement of Alexandria and other anti-gnostic writers before him, that God's own participation in the act of creating a child is a sign of the goodness of marital procreation.10 No one should have to blush, he says, at the thought that Mary lived a normal married life after the birth of Jesus.11 Finally, Helvidius suggests, those who defend the perpetual virginity of Mary do so because they really find the whole notion of birth shameful and "degrading" (turpe). If such Christians followed the logic of their own argument, Helvidius suggested, they would deny altogether the possibility of God's being born of a virgin's womb (per genitalia virginis).11 The foregoing comments show that Helvidius' polemic extended beyond the initial concern with the exclusivist symbolism of Mary's perpetual virginity. Helvidius also argued that the rejection of Mary's marital life rested on an essentially negative evaluation of human sexuality and procreation, one which led ultimately to a denial of the goodness of creation itself. Echoing earlier anti-heretical writers, Helvidius maintained that to deny the goodness of creation leads logically to a denial of the Incarnation itself and to the heresy of Docetism. Any ascetic piety that would depreciate marriage, in Helvidius' view, is false both because it fosters an elitist distinction within the church and because it introduces an unhealthy theological pessimism into its appraisal of creation and the works of creation. 8. HeIv. 19. 9. HeIv. 16 (PL 23.210). In HeIv. 1 (PL 23.193), Jerome says that he wrote his response ob scandalum fratrum, qui ad eius ¡i.e., Helvidii] rabiem movebantur, which is a further indication of Helvidius' success. 10. See, forexample, Clement of Alexandria, paed. 2.10.83 and Methodius of Olympus, symp. 2.1. 11. HeIv. 18 (PL 23.212): Nunquid non quotidie Dei manibus parvuli finguntur in ventribus, ut mérito erubescere debeamus, Mariam nupsisse post partum? 12. HeIv. 18 (PL 23.212). HUNTER/HELVIDIUS, JOVINIAN, ON MARY'S VIRGINITY 51 PART TWO: THE POLEMIC OF JOVINIAN Helvidius seems to have disappeared rather quickly from the Roman theological scene, although a sect of Helvidiani is said to have survived.13 But his place was taken within the next decade by an even more formidable critic of ascetic claims, the monk Jovinian. Jovinian appeared at Rome sometime late in the 3 80s, preaching the fundamental equality of all Christians, much as Helvidius had done. In the work of Jovinian, however, we find an even sharper and theologically more sophisticated argument.14 Jovinian revived Helvidius' two primary concerns, that is, the opposition to the formation of an ascetic elite in the church and resistance to the ascetic devaluation of creation and human sexuality, but he gave to both a more extensive biblical and theological grounding. Indeed, judging from Jerome's refutation of it, Jovinian's treatise (or treatises) must have consisted largely of biblical texts to which he attached his theological commentary.15 But Jovinian's work was not without some systematic unity, and this seems to have been provided by four theses or propositions which Jerome claims to be citing verbatim from Jovinian's work. They are as follows: 1. Virgins, widows and married women, who have once been washed in Christ, are of the same merit, if they do not differ in other works. 2. Those who have been born again in baptism with full faith cannot be overthrown by the devil. 3. There is no difference between abstinence from food and receiving 4. it with thanksgiving. There is one reward in the kingdom of heaven for all who have preserved their baptism.16 13. On the followers of Helvidius, see Augustine, haer. 84 (CChr 46.338). It may be significant that there was no official condemnation of Helvidius. Indeed, Jerome is the only contemporary writer who attacked Helvidius directly. This may be due to the fact that there was as yet no consensus on the question of Mary's virginity post partum. Cf. Jouassard, "La personnalité," 154. 14. On the anti-Manichean aspects of Jovinian's work, see my article, "Resistance to the Virginal Ideal in Late-Fourth-Century Rome," TS 48 (1987): 45-64. 15. Jerome calls Jovinian's works commentarioli and commentant. Ancient com- mentators frequently noted Jovinian's extensive use of scripture. See, for example, Vincent of Lerins, Commonitorium 35; cited in Wilhelm Haller, lovinianus. Die Fragmente seine Schriften, die Quellen zu seiner Geschichte, sein Leben und seine Lehre, TU 17/2 (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1897), 111-12. 16. Iov. 1.3 (PL 23.224). 52 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES It is clear from the phrasing of these propositions that baptism was a critical category in Jovinian's thought.17 It is baptism, Jovinian argued, that establishes the holiness of each Christian, not ascetic merit. Furthermore, it is baptism that establishes the holiness of the church, a holiness which belongs essentially to the church itself. Only through baptism does one enter into the holiness of the church, and therefore this holiness is possessed by all Christians alike, regardless of ascetic merit.18 This ecclesiological dimension of Jovinian's argument is clearly expressed at a number of places, particularly when he is interpreting biblical texts. In one passage, for example, Jovinian is treating 2 Corinthians 11:2 ("I espoused you to one husband, that I might present you as a pure virgin to him"). According to Jerome, Jovinian takes this text to refer to "the whole church of believers" (ad totam ecclesiam credentium), which con- tains within it married persons, widows, the twice-married, and virgins.19 All Christians share in the chastity (pudicitia) of the church, Jovinian ar- gued, and in the reward of virginity which belongs to the church. In another place Jovinian paraphrased the words of Jesus from the high- priestly prayer of John's Gospel (17:20-23): "I do not pray for these alone, but for those who will believe in me through their words. Just as you are in me, Father, and I am in you, so may they all be one in us. ..." According to Jovinian, the passage signified that just as the Father, Son, and Spirit are one God, so too "there is one people in them (unus populus in ipsis), who like beloved children all share in the divine nature."20 Jovinian appears to have placed a particular stess on the unity of the church, a unity constituted by the indwelling of the triune God, a unity which ought not to be divided by distinctions of ascetic merit. Immediately following the passage just cited Jovinian goes on to add a further gloss on the text, a gloss made more significant by the fact that it does not seem to be commenting directly on the passage from John's Gospel. "Whatever names you want to call it," Jovinian writes, "Bride, Sister, 17. This was recognized more than thirty years ago by Francesco Valli in his Gioviniano. Esame delle fonti e dei frammenti (Urbino: Université di Urbino, 1953). See also the useful theological appreciation of Jovinian by Allan J. Budzin, "Jovinian's Four Theses on the Christian Life: An Alternative Patristic Spirituality," Toronto Journal of Theology 4/1 (1988): 44-59, esp. 52-55. 18. See the helpful statement of J.N.D. Kelly, Jerome, 181: "... what gave a theological basis and inner cohesion to these propositions was Jovinian's stress on the element of faith in baptism, and his conviction that the transformation effected by it not only rescued a man from the power of sin but created a unified, holy people in which considerations of merit were irrelevant." 19. Iov. 1.37 (PL 23.275-276). 20. Ibid. 2.19 (PL 23.328). HUNTER/HELVIDIUS, JOVINIAN, ON MARY'S VIRGINITY 53 Mother, or anything else: it is the gathering of one church, which is never without its Spouse, Brother, or Son. She has one faith, nor is she defiled by a variety of doctrines, nor is she divided by heresy. She remains a Virgin. And wherever the Lamb goes, she follows him. She alone knows the canticle of Christ."21 And in another place Jerome says that Jovinian continually repeated the words "Bride," "Sister," and "Mother" and asserted that these names are titles of the one church and should be applied to all believers.22 The foregoing fragments from Jovinian make reference to several biblical texts. The allusions to the "Bride" (sponsa) and "Sister" (soror) echo the Song of Songs, where these epithets are applied to the central female character. The reference to the Lamb recalls the Book of Revelation 14:3— 4, where it is said that only the 144,000 who had been redeemed could learn the new song: "These are those who did not defile themselves with women, for they are virgins. They follow the Lamb wherever he goes." The allusion to the church as "virgin" would have been familiar from a variety of scripture passages, such as 2 Cor 11:2, a text which, as we have already seen, Jovinian interpreted with reference to the church. Jerome does not tell us exactly whose views Jovinian was opposing when he insisted that these various titles belonged to the whole church and not to any specific group within the church, but we do not have to look very far to discover the likely source. Jerome's own Letter 22 on virginity, addressed to Eustochium in 384, had made extensive use of bridal imagery from the Song of Songs to characterize the life of the Christian virgin. From its opening reference to Psalm 45 (10—11: "Hearken, O Daughter, and see . . . forget they people and they father's house; and the king shall greatly desire they beauty"), to its closing citations of the Song (8:6-7), Jerome's Letter 22 constantly referred to the Christian virgin as the Bride of Christ.23 In Jerome's letter the virgin is the "garden enclosed, the fountain sealed up" of the Song (4:12), who has retreated from public life and from public scrutiny.24 She will be greeted on judgement day by Mary, the virgin mother of the Lord, accompanied by bands of virgins, including the noble 21. Ibid.: Sponsa, soror, mater, et quaecumque alia putaveris vocabula, unius ecclesiae congregatio est, quae numquam est sine sponso, fratre, filio. Unam habet fidem, nee constupratur dogmatum varietate, nee haeresibus scinditur. Virgo permanet. Quocunque vadit agnus, sequitur ilium: sola novit Canticum Christi. 22. Ibid. 2.30. 23. Ep. 22.1.1-2, 5; 8.1; 16.1; 17.1-2, 4; 20.1; 24.6; 25.1, 3-5; 26.1; 29.2; 41.1-4. 24. Ep. 22.25.1; cf. 17.1. 54 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES Thecla.25 Then, too, Christ will come and welcome his spouse with the words of the Song (2:10): "Arise, come, my love, my beautiful one, my dove, for winter is now past; the rain is over and gone."26 She will enter the throne room, Jerome say, and join the 144,000 virgins who alone can sing the new song, that is, the virgins of the Book of Revelation who have not defiled themselves with sexual relations and who alone follow the Lamb wherever he goes.27 It is difficult to resist the conclusion that Jovinian was responding directly to Jerome's interpretation of the Song of Songs as Jerome had presented it in his Letter 22 to Eustochium. Not only are there several textual parallels, but Jerome's use of the biblical text omits precisely that element which Jovinian insisted on, that is, an ecclesial interpretation. Not once in this letter does Jerome indicate that the bride of the Song might also refer to the church.28 Furthermore, not only does Jerome ignore the ecclesial interpretation, but at times his virginal interpretation actually undermines the ecclesial one. In one place, for example, Jerome tells Eustochium: "I would not have you consort with married women. I would not have you visit the homes of the distinguished. . . .Why do you, the bride of God, make haste to call on the wife of a mortal man? Attain a holy pride in this relationship. Know that you are better than they."29 Jerome's use of the conjugal imag- ery of the Song of Songs was exactly the kind of interpretation against which Jovinian was protesting.30 To understand the full significance of this exegetical conflict between Jovinian and Jerome, it is important to see that the application of bridal imagery to the individual virgin was a relatively new development in the exegetical tradition, particularly in the West. The dominant interpretation, prior to the fourth century, was that the bride of the Song signified the church, whom Christ had espoused to himself. Origen had expanded this to include the union of the Logos with the individual soul.31 Only in the 25. Ep. 22.41.1-2. 26. Ep. 22.41.2. 27. Ep. 22.41.2, citing Rev 14:3—4. Ambrose also refers to this passage from Revelation, along with allusions to the Song of Songs, but not in any work which predates the Jovinianist controversy. See his de institutione virginis 113 (PL 16.348), dated 391-392. 28. This omission is especially odd since Jerome had recently translated two of Origen's homilies on the Song of Songs, in which the ecclesial interpretation was predominant. 29. Ep. 22.16.1-2; translated by C. C. Mierow, The Letters of St. Jerome, ACW 33 (New York: Newman Press, 1963), 147. 30. "Be not proud," Jovinian had written, "you and your married sisters are members of the same church"; cited in Iov. 1.5. 31. Although Origen saw virginity as a privileged means of achieving intimate union with Christ and of actualizing the union of Christ and the church, this view did not lead HUNTER/HELVIDIUS, JOVINIAN, ON MARY'S VIRGINITY 55 later years of the third century was the text applied directly to Christian virgins. Methodius of Olympus seems to have been the first to use nuptial imagery to characterize the relationship between Christ and the individual virgin.32 In the West it was Ambrose of Milan who first developed the virginal interpretation of the Song and who was, in all probablity, the source of Jerome's exegesis in his Letter 22 to Eustochium.33 Several years before the debates with Helvidius and Jovinian, around the year 377, Ambrose had issued a three book treatise, De virginibus, a collection of different sermons which he had reworked into a single composition.34 Two features of Ambrose's work are especially striking. First, he makes extensive use of the Song of Songs to portray the life of the Christian virgin. Second, he presents the virgin Mary as a pattern of the ascetic life of the consecrated virgin. Both themes had been developed by Athanasius in the Coptic Letter to Virgins, a work from which Ambrose borrowed extensively.35 What is most significant about Ambrose's work is the manner in which the virginal interpretation of the Song is used to stress the superiority of virgins over married persons. Like Jerome, Ambrose in de virginibus often emphasizes the superiority of the virgin who has Christ as her spouse over the married person who has a merely human one.36 That holiness and him to speak of the virgin as the bride of Christ in any of his commentaries on the Song of Songs. A useful survey of the earlier exegetical tradition can be found in Introduction by O. Rousseau to Origène. Homélies sur le Cantiques des Cantiques, SC 37 (Paris, 1953), 10—18. See also Elizabeth A. Clark, "The Uses of the Song of Songs: Origen and the Later Latin Fathers," in her Ascetic Piety and Women's Faith: Essays on Late Ancient Christianity, SWR 20 (Lewiston and Queenston: Edwin Mellen Press, 1986), 386-427. 32. Symp. 7.1, for example. In Methodius, however, the virginal interpretation of the Song is not the only, or even the primary, interpretation. The Church itself is the true Bride of Christ; the order of virgins serve as her attendants, but it is her wedding that is being celebrated. See his symp. 7.8-9; also 3.8, 8.8-11, and the Hymn of Thecla, 7 and 28. 33. In ep. 22.22.3 Jerome says that Ambrose in his treatise de virginibus "has expressed himself with such eloquence that he has sought out, arranged, and given expression to all that pertains to the praise of virginity" (Mierow, 155). 34. For a discussion of the dating and composition, see Y. M. Duval, "L'originalité du De virginibus dans le mouvement ascétique occidental. Ambroise, Cyprien, Athanase," in Ambroise de Milan. XVIe Centenaire de son élection episcopate (Paris: Études Augustiniennes, 1974), 11-12. 35. The text is preserved in extensive Coptic fragments. It was published by LouisThéodore Lefort, "Saint Athanase: Sur la Virginité," Mus 42 (1929): 197-275; also in Athanase. Lettres festales et pastorales en copte, CSCO 150-151 (Louvain, 1955). Fora more recent discussion, see Y. M. Duval, "Le problématique de la Lettre aux vierges d'Athanase," Mus 88 (1975), 405-433. 36. For example, virg. 1.22; also 1.36 (the virgin is married to a superior spouse); 1.37 (the virgin is married to an everlasting King); 1.38 (the virgin's soul is perfect and 56 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES union with Christ, which earlier writers had attributed to the church, became in the hands of Ambrose a means of exalting virginity over marriage. It is true that in other works Ambrose showed that he was very skilled at applying the Song of Songs to the union of Christ with the church and to the mystical communion of Christ with the individual soul.37 Nevertheless, in his ascetical writings it is the virginal interpretation which predominates. Jovinian seems to have had in mind this ascetical use of the Song of Songs when he composed his biblical commentaries. Recall his remark that terms such as "Bride," "Sister," "Mother," and "Virgin" belong to the gathering of the one church, whose faith is one and undivided. Jovinian appears to have regarded the assimilation of the Christian virgin to the bride of Christ as an illegitimate narrowing of the scope of holiness, a shift from an ecclesial and corporate piety to an ascetical and private one, a shift from a vision of a church unified by the indwelling of the Spirit given in baptism to that of a church divided into hierarchies based on ascetic merit. Jovinian's response, therefore, was to insist that the spousal imagery of the Song of Songs applied only to the church as a whole.38 Another feature of Jovinian's argument that must be given attention is the manner in which he denied Mary's virginity in partu. This point is of particular interest because it is not mentioned by Jerome in his extensive refutation of Jovinian. Nor does this position of Jovinian's appear in the brief letter of Pope Siricius, which announced the condemnation of Jovinian and his followers at a Roman synod of 393. It is first mentioned by faultlessly beautiful, citing Song 4:7-10); 1.39 (citing Song 4:10-11); 1.45 (the virginal soul is stamped with the image of God, citing Song 4:12) ; 1.48 (the virgin lives the life of heaven and is not to be compared with the citizen of earth, citing Song 8:6). 37. In his treatise de Isaac vel anima, for example, Ambrose, like Origen before him, always interprets the bride as the church or the individual soul. In myst. 7.35—41 and 9.55-58, the church is the bride whom Christ pastures and feeds on the sacraments. And in sacr. 5.2.5-3.17, the bride is the church or soul whom Christ kisses with the sacraments. Such passages have caused Bernard McGinn to suggest that one of Ambrose's great contributions was to place the interpretation of the Song of Songs at the center of an "ecclesial mysticism," that is, "one realized only in and through the church and its sacraments. " See his The Presence of God. A History of Western Mysticism (New York: Crossroad, 1991), vol. 1, The Foundations of Mysticism. Origins to the Fifth Century, 203. For a fuller discussion, see Ernst Dassmann, Die Frömmigkeit des Kirchenvaters Ambrosius von Mailand, Münsterische Beiträge zur Theologie 29 (Münster: Aschendorff, 1965), 135-171. 38. In Iov. 1.30 (PL 23.263), Jerome says that Jovinian took the Song of Songs as an endorsement of marriage. Jerome's response is to argue that the Song of Songs "contains the mysteries of virginity." He concludes his illustrations by applying the Song to the virgin Mary: Iov. 1.31 (PL 23.265). HUNTER/HELVIDIUS, JOVINIAN, ON MARY'S VIRGINITY 57 Ambrose in his rescript to Pope Siricius reporting the condemnation of Jovinian by a synod at Milan. According to Ambrose, Jovinian maintained that Mary had conceived as a virgin, but that she had not given birth as a virgin: Virgo concepit, sed non virgo generavit.39 The silence of the other sources on this proposition of Jovinian is intrigu- ing. Although it is possible that such a teaching did not occur in any of Jovinian's writings to which Jerome and Siricius had access, most commentators believe that the omission is a result of the fact that neither Siricius nor Jerome found Jovinian's denial of Mary's virginity in partu to be partic- ularly offensive.40 Jerome seems not to have held the doctrine at this time. Ambrose, by contrast, devotes a good portion of his letter to answering Jovinian's view on Mary. Why was Ambrose the only one to attack Jovinian on this point? And why did Jovinian bother to criticize a teaching which was not itself widely held? To answer these questions we must turn to a later source, Augustine of Hippo, who provides evidence on both points. Augustine treats Jovinian at several places in his works. In his Contra Julianum, a treatise written ca. 420 against the Pelagian bishop, Julian of Eclanum, Augustine noted that Jovinian, like Julian, charged the Catholics with "Manicheism." Jerome had already stated in a number of places that Jovinian called the leaders of the ascetic movement "Manichees," but Au- gustine tells us why.41 Jovinian did so, Augustine says, "because he denied that the virginity of Mary, which existed when she conceived, remained while she gave birth."42 Augustine goes on to say that the reason for Jovinian's denial of Mary's virginity in partu was that the doctrine was too close to the Manichean view that Christ was simply a phantom (Phantasma). It was well-known that the Manichees held a Docetic christology.43 Jovinian seems to have been unable to construe the doctrine of Mary's virginity in partu as anything other than a denial of the true humanity of Christ. If Jesus did not undergo a normal human birth, as Jovinian saw it, then his body was something other than a truly human one, and this was Manicheism. Jovinian's argument was, as Augustine put it, "most acute" (acutissimum), and it is no wonder that Jerome and Siricius declined to answer it. But Ambrose had a special interest in addressing the issue. He himself was the chief target of Jovinian's charge of Manicheism. The point is made explicitly by Augustine in several places, first in De nuptiis et concupiscen39. Ep. 42.4 (PL 16.1173). 40. For example, Kelly, Jerome 185-86. 41. lov. 1.5; cf. 1.9. 42. IuI. 1.2.4 (PL 44.643). 43. Augustine, conf. 5.10.20 (CChr 27.69); Faust. 30.6 (CSEL 25.755). 58 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES tia (ca. 420). There Augustine notes that Jovinian had called Ambrose a Manichee and that Ambrose had defended the perpetual virginity of Mary against him.44 Once again, a brief digression into the works of Ambrose will be helpful to clarify exactly what it was that Jovinian was attacking. The doctrine of the virginity of Mary in partu emerged only gradually in Ambrose's thought. It first is found in his treatise De virginibus in a passage that does not deal explicitly with Mary, but rather with the virginity and fecundity of the church. "The church is unstained by sexual intercourse (immaculata coitu)" Ambrose writes, "and yet fruitful in childbirth. She is virgin because of her chastity and a mother because of her offspring. She brought us into life, conceived not of man but of the Spirit, in a birth free of bodily pain (non cum dolore membrorum) and full of the joy of angels."45 Although Ambrose does not explicitly mention Mary, it is clear that the notion of a virginal conception and birth of Jesus lies behind his exposition of the church; both are virgins ante partum and in partu. The virginity in partu is later developed by Ambrose in his Exposition on the Gospel of Luke, a work issued around 385—388, which Jovinian may have known. Here Ambrose makes explicit reference to the parallel be- tween Mary and the church. He writes that it was appropriate that Mary was betrothed and a virgin at the conception of Jesus: "For she is a type of the church, who is immaculate but married. A virgin has conceived us by the Spirit, a virgin has given birth to us without groaning."46 Later in the Exposition on Luke Ambrose develops even further the implications of this text. The virginal conception and birth of Jesus, he writes, were necessary because "the fragility of the human flesh and mind is inextricably caught in vice since it is lead by a sort of desire for sin."47 Christ's own birth from the virgin was holy because it resulted not from sexual intercourse, but from the immaculatum semen sown by the Holy Spirit.48 Jesus "did not experience the defilement of earthly corruption because of the novelty of the 44. Nupt. 2.15 (CSEL 42.267): Numquidetiamistum [i.e., Ambrosium], o Pelagiani et Caelestiani, audebitis dicere Manicheum? Quod eum dicebat esse Jovinianus haereticus, contra cujus impietatem vir ¡lie sanctus etiam post partum permanentem virginitatem sanctae Mariae defendebat. Cf. c. lui. op. imp. 4.121-122 (PL 45.1415-19). 45. Virg. 1.31 (PL 16.208). Ambrose goes on to stress the superiority of the church's virginal fecundity over that of married couples. 46. Luc. 2.7 (SC 45.74). 47. ¡bid. 2.56 (SC 45.97). Ambrose's doctrine of sin is strongly influenced by Philo, especially in its tendency to link sin with corporeality and sense pleasure. See the discussion in Dassmann, Die Frömmigkeit 46—50. As Dassmann notes (50), "[Ambrosius] asketischen Forderungen, seine Bewertung der Ehe, die Begründung der Jungfräulichkeit werden davon mitgeprägt sein." 48. Luc. (SC 45.97-98). HUNTER/HELVIDIUS, JOVINIAN, ON MARY'S VIRGINITY 59 immaculate birth."49 Therefore, Ambrose continues, Jesus alone "opened the hidden womb of the holy virgin church, which possesses immaculate fecundity, in order to generate the people of God."50 Ambrose is here echoing the idea, already taught by Origen, that the virginal conception was necessary so that Jesus would be free of the taint of sin which is passed on by sexual intercourse.51 But Ambrose goes further than Origen (and further than most of his own contemporaries) by speaking of Mary's virginity even in partu. The reason for this development seems to lie in Ambrose's view of Mary as a "type" of the church. This typology, which was Ambrose's original creation, reflects his intense interest in Mary as a model of virginal integrity, as well as his idea of the virginal character of the church. Mary's virginal birthing of Jesus came to typify, in the full theological sense of that term, the salvific act whereby the church gives birth to Christians. Ambrose is here recalling the ancient Eve/Mary parallel, but extending it to the church. Both the physical birth of Jesus and the baptismal birthing of Christians have to be fully virginal, even in partu, in order to cancel the ancient sin of Adam and to reverse the sentence given to Eve: "In pain you will give birth to children" (Gen 3:16).52 It is significant that Ambrose's use of the Eve/Mary parallel now hinges on the matter of sexual purity and physical integrity; it depends on the notion that sexual relations somehow defile the human child and that the natural pains of labor are a sign of the original sin. Jesus, therefore, in the perspective of Ambrose, could not have had a truly normal conception or birth.53 This was a step which most of Ambrose's contemporaries were not yet willing to take, and Jovinian's criticism tells us why. The notion of a virginity in partu seemed too redolent of the Manichean rejection of cre49. Ibid. (SC 45.98). 50. Ibid. 2.57 (SC 45.98). In Luc. 2.43 (SC 45.92) Mary's virginitas in partu is stated in almost formulaic terms without reference to the church: Nupta peperit, sed virgo concepit; nupta concepit, sed virgo generavit. This last statement seems to be literally echoed by Jovinian in his denial of the doctrine: Virgo concepit, sed non virgo generavit. Cf. Ambrose, ep. 42.4 (PL 16.1173). 51. For more on Origen's idea of sin and its connection with sexual generation, see my discussion further below. Ambrose's commentary on Luke follows Origen's commentary on Luke almost verbatim at some points. 52. For Ambrose's explicit use of the Eve/Mary parallel, see Luc. 4.7 (SC 45.153); also his expositio psal. 118 2.8 (CSEL 62.24). 53. This notion is made explicit by Ambrose in pee«. 1.3.13 (PL 16.490): Non enim sicut omnis homo est, ex virili erat et femÃ-nea permistione generatus: sed natus de Spiritu sancto et de virgine, immaculatum corpus susceperat, quod non solum nulla vitia maculaverant, sed nec generationis aut conceptionis concretio injuriosa fuscaverat. This passage was to be quoted by Augustine several times against Julian of Eclanum. See Neumann, Virgin Mary, 78. 60 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES ation. It implied contempt for the natural processes of procreation and childbirth which, for Jovinian and his allies, were God's original gifts to the human race. Furthermore, the theme of Mary's virginity in partu eventually became connected in Ambrose's thought with the image of the virginal bride in the Song of Songs. From his earliest works on virginity Ambrose (following Athanasius) had taken Mary as a model of virginal purity. Gradually, however, he began to assimilate the virgin Mary to the bride of the Song; the identification is found in several works written just before and during the conflict with Jovinian.54 This development corresponded to his growing attachment to the doctrine of Mary's virginity in partu. Mary becomes the "garden enclosed, the fountain sealed up" of the Song of Song (4:12).55 In other words, the several images are simultaneously coalescing in Am- brose's mind: the Church = the bride of Christ = the consecrated virgin— the virgin Mary (in partu, as well as ante partum and posr partum). The Song of Songs, for Ambrose, spoke of all these virgins. Ambrose's virginal ecclesiology may provide another clue as to why Jovinian attacked his teaching on Mary's virginity. Not only did the doctrine seem "Manichean," but it served to underwrite a view of the church that profoundly devalued all who were not virgins. Ambrose's understand- ing of the virginity of Mary and the virginity of the church was grounded in a view of sexuality that was linked to original sin; such a view automatically relegated the married to a lower status. Ambrose's active propagation of the virginal ideal at Milan led more than one person to conclude that Christian baptism required the repudiation of sexual relations.56 To sum up my argument thus far, both Helvidius and Jovinian rejected the notion that virginity was a higher and better way of life than marriage. Both taught that ascetic elitism threatened a sound understanding of the church, whose holiness was shared by all members alike. They also shared 54. It is hinted at in Ambrose's psal. 118 17.19 (dated 386-3 90) ; it is stated explicitly in his de institutione virginis, composed 391-392. For further references and comment, see Graef, Mary 85-86. I have followed the dates given in Angelo Di Berardino, ed., Patrology (Westminster, Md: Christian Classics, 1986), vol. 4, The Golden Age of Latin Patristic Literature, 163-64 and 168. 55. Ambrose applies the verse to Mary in response to Jovinian: ep. 42.12-13 (PL 16.1176). Cf. Jerome, ¡ov. 1.30-31 and ep. 49.21 (CSEL 54.386). For further references, see Elizabeth Clark, "Uses of the Songs of Songs," 404-406. 56. See Augustine, conf. 9.3.5, and the comments of Peter Brown, Body and Society, 350: "Listening to Ambrose preaching, in the exciting years of 385 and 386, Verecundus, a well-placed Milanese teacher, decided that his bishop had implied that he could not yet become baptized, for he was a married man, "fettered" to an active sexual relation with his wife." HUNTER/HELVIDIUS, JOVINIAN, ON MARY'S VIRGINITY 61 the view that the ascetic depreciation of marriage was based on a faulty, and ultimately heretical, view of created reality. Both writers saw these negative tendencies mirrored in the ascetic use of Mary's virginity. For Helvidius, the doctrine of Mary's virginity posr partum served to narrow the scope of holiness. For Jovinian, the virginity of Mary in partu, currently being es- poused by Ambrose, expressed the ascetic party's contempt for the material world and implied that only the virginal Christian truly transcended the original sin. PART THREE: MARY'S VIRGINITY IN THE EARLY TRADITION From the perspective of the later history of ascetical theology and Marian devotion, the views of Jerome and Ambrose were destined to triumph. Doctrines such as the virginity of Mary in partu and posr partum were to become generally accepted in Catholic theology down to our own century. From the point of view of a fourth century observer, however, this development would not have been clear. A survey of Marian theology before the era of Ambrose and Jerome reveals that these doctrines have almost no place in Western theology prior to the fourth century. Furthermore, where they do occur, they are invariably associated with marginal, if not heretical, theological tendencies. In other words, in the context of the late fourth century, Helvidius and Jovinian could plausibly claim to be authentic representatives of the mainstream of Christian tradition. There is no need to dwell at any length on the evidence of the New Testament. There is universal agreement that the New Testament makes no explicit declaration on either the virginity of Mary in partu or posr partum. The idea of the virginal conception of Jesus, to be sure, can be found in Matthew's Gospel and possibly also in Luke's. But even this teaching seems to have had little theological significance before the middle of the second century. Of the Apostolic Fathers only Ignatius of Antioch makes any extended reference to the virginal conception, and he does so largely to emphasize the reality of Jesus's human birth against Docetic heretics who would deny any humanity at all in the savior.57 57. Ignatius' most extensive discussion of Jesus' birth from Mary is found in Eph. 19.1-3. Here Ignatius mentions that Jesus' birth was a "mystery" that "eluded the ruler of this age. " The theme of Jesus' hidden birth was sometimes linked to docetic views, e.g. in the Ascension of Isaiah. Ignatius, however, insists on the virgin birth to make "a vigorous anti-docetic statement." See the comments of William R. Schoedel, A Commentary on the Letters of Ignatius of Antioch, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985), 90. It has been suggested that Ignatius himself taught Mary's virginity in partu; 62 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES The situation changes around the middle of the second century. In the apologist Justin the virginal conception begins to gain some theological prominence. In his first Apology, Justin uses the virginal conception of Jesus as part of his argument from the fulfillment of prophecy. The text of Isaiah 7:14 ("A virgin will conceive and bear a son and will call him Emmanuel") is used to argue on behalf of the divine origins of Jesus.58 In Justin there also appears for the first time the typological parallel between Eve and Mary, which is destined to exercise such a great influence on the subsequent development of Marian theology.59 At the end of the second century Irenaeus takes up and develops the Eve/Mary parallel within his broader scheme of the history of salvation. But there appears to be little interest in Mary or in her virginal integrity as such; everything in Irenaeus' discussion is subordinate to his christological and soteriological perspective: the obedience of the virgin Mary recapitulates the disobedience of the virgin Eve.60 It must also be noted that neither Justin nor Irenaeus says anything explicit about the perpetual virginity of Mary or about the virginity in partu.61 Their focus is entirely on the virginal conception of Jesus and on its significance for the history of salvation. For evidence of early Christian teaching on the perpetual virginity of Mary, we must turn to the world of the apocrypha, which is the only place where such doctrines seem to have flourished in the second century. The Odes of Solomon, for example, make a passing reference to Mary's giving birth without the pain of labor.62 The Ascension of Isaiah refers to the see Joseph C. Plumpe, "Some Little-Known Early Witnesses to Mary's virginitas in partu," TS 9 (1948):567-77. I am not convinced by Plumpe's argument. 58. 1 Apol. 33.1-4 and 54.8; text in André Wartelle, Saint Justin. Apologies (Paris: Etudes Augustiniennes, 1987), 143 and 175. 59. Justin, dial. 100. Cf. H. Graef, Mary, 37-38; Campenhausen, Virgin Birth, 2021,31-33. See also R. Brown et al., Mary in the New Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1978), 253-254. 60. Irenaeus, haer. 3.22.3-4 (SC 211.438-44); also 5.19.1 (SC 153.248-50). Cf. Campenhausen, Virgin Birth, 34-41. 61. Essential on this question is H. Koch, Virgo Eva-Virgo Maria. Neue Untersuchungen über die Lehre von der Jungfrauschaft und der Ehe Mariens in der ältesten Kirche (Berlin and Leipzig: Walter de Gruyter, 1937), 17-60, 63-64. 62. Odes SoI. 19.7-9: "... the Virgin became a mother with great mercies. And she laboured and bore a Son without pain, because it did not occur without purpose. And she did not require a midwife, because he caused her to give life." Translated by J. H. Charlesworth, The Odes of Solomon (Oxford: The Clarendon Press of Oxford University, 1973), 82. Once thought to be Gnostic, the Odes are now regarded as essentially "orthodox," at least by second century Syrian standards. See the discussion in HUNTER/HELVIDIUS, JOVINIAN, ON MARY'S VIRGINITY 63 sudden appearance of Jesus after Mary has been pregnant for only two months.63 Mary and Joseph were amazed, the text says, and "after her amazement wore off, her womb was found as it was before she was with child. " But by far the most significant document for the post partum and in partu virginity of Mary is the Protevangelium of James, a text which stands as the ultimate source of almost all later Marian doctrine. The Protevangelium was written towards the end of the second century, probably in Syria.64 It reflects the radically ascetic, possibly Encratite, environment of early Syrian Christianity, which produced other apocryphal works such as the Acts of Thomas.65 The Protevangelium has as its primary aim to glorify the virgin Mary and to defend her perpetual virginity.66 But the text offers more than simply a restatement of the gospel traditions. It presents an extended narrative of Mary's entire life, from her own miraculous conception to the birth of Jesus, as a testimony to the purity of virginity. The Protevangelium begins by describing Mary's own conception as a direct act of God's providence (1.2—4.4). She is consecrated as a virgin from the time that she is six months old. Her mother Anna makes her bedroom into a sanctuary (hagiasma) and allows nothing common or unclean to enter it (4.1). At the age of three Mary is brought to the temple to be raised by the priests (7.2). When she is twelve years old, because of the danger of ritual pollution from her menstrual period, Mary is given in marriage to Joseph, an elderly widower who has several sons by his previous marriage. The Protevangelium stresses, however, that theirs is not a true marriage; Charlesworth, "The Odes of Solomon—Not Gnostic," CBQ 31 (1969): 357-69; also Henry Chadwick, "Some Reflections on the Character and Theology of the Odes of Solomon," in P. Granfield and J. Jungmann, eds., Kyriakon: Festschrift Johannes Quasten (Münster: Aschendorff, 1970), vol. 1, 266-270. 63. Ascension of Isaiah 11.8. Text translated in E. Hennecke and W. Schneemelcher, eds., New Testament Apocrypha (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1965), vol. 2, Writings Related to the Apostles; Apocalypses and Related Subjects, 661. 64. For background, see H.R. Smid, Protevangelium Jacobi. A Commentary, Apocrypha Novi Testamenti 1 (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1965); also O. Cullmann, "Infancy Gospels," in Hennecke-Schneemelcher, eds., New Testament Apocrypha 1.370-374. 65. See E. Cothenet, "Protévangile de Jacques," in the Dictionnaire de la Bible, Supplément 8 (1972): 1383, who suggests such a connection. On the relation between Encratism and the Apocryphal Acts generally, see Y. Tissot, "Encratisme et Actes Apocryphes," in F. Bovon et al., Les actes apocryphes des apôtres. Christianisme et monde païen (Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1981), 109-119. 66. There is a clear polemic against Jewish and pagan critics, such as the philosopher Celsus, who impugned the tradition of the virginal conception of Jesus. See Smid, Protevangelium, 15-16. 64 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES rather, Mary is given to Joseph only to be protected by him, and he does not live with her (9.1-2).67 When the document comes to the story of Jesus' birth, even more ex- traordinary elements are present. Having acquired a midwife to assist in the birth, Joseph and the midwife approach the cave only to discover that Jesus has suddenly appeared (19.2). The midwife is present only to testify to the miraculous birth of the child. The narrative continues with the story of Salome, another midwife, who questions the evidence of the in partu virginity. Like the doubting Thomas, Salome declares that she must put her finger into Mary's womb, for she cannot believe that a virgin has given birth (19.3). When Salome's hand is suddenly withered and consumed by fire, she accepts the doctrine without further inspection. The Protevangelium is a puzzling text. Its high Mariology stands at variance with the sort of concerns evidenced by other second century sources such as Justin and Irenaeus. It is unique even among the apocrypha because of its intense focus on Mary's perpetual virginity. Whereas the christological element is still dominant in the Odes of Solomon and the Ascension of Isaiah, the Protevangelium is preoccupied entirely with Mary and with her consecration to a life of perpetual virginity. Furthermore, within the focus on Mary, the concern is entirely with her sexual purity. No other virtue is mentioned: not her faith at the annunciation, nor her devotion to Jesus at the crucifixion. Mary's sole merit, according to the Protevangelium, is her sexual chastity, and the sole purpose of the narrative is to express and defend sexual purity. These various features are best accounted for by the profoundly ascetic, possibly Encratite, origin of the text. The intense focus on Mary's perpetual virginity and the image of the celibate marriage of Mary and Joseph corresponds precisely with the ideal of "spiritual marriage" cherished in Syrian ascetical circles. Furthermore, the very notion of the virginitas in partu is dependent on the idea of the reversal of the penalty of the first sin as described in Gen 3:16. The idea of virginity as a return to the state of Adam and Eve in paradise before the fall is thoroughly congruent with the Encratite view that sexuality is a symptom of the fall and that virginity is both a return to a pre-lapsarian paradise and an anticipation of the resurrec67. After the virginal conception of Jesus, both Mary and Joseph are accused by the temple priests of violating their agreement of chastity (15.1-2). They are tested according to a ritual prescribed in Num 5:11-31 and are found to be guiltless. The Protevangelium wants it to be clearly understood that Mary and Joseph have entered into a pact of perpetual virginity and that such an agreement was publicly known, especially by the temple priests. HUNTER/HELVIDIUS, JOVINIAN, ON MARY'S VIRGINITY 65 tion.68 The ever-virgin Mary, as depicted in the Protevangelium, whose very parturition reversed the penalty of Eve, would be a powerful endorsement of the Encratite ideal.69 Whatever the precise origins of the Protevangelium are, it is clear that its doctrine was a novelty and an oddity in second century Christianity. It is the only document from this period to describe at any length the virginity of Mary posr partum and in partu. It was, moreover, a work whose time had not yet come.70 Not until the fourth century and the writings associated with the ascetic movement do we find a comparable interest in these two doctrines. There, as we have seen, the seeds sown by the Protevangelium will bear fruit in the discourses of Ambrose. But that is not the whole story. This survey would not be complete without some attention to two further writers, Tertullian and Origen, who show that the perspectives of the Protevangelium were not widely shared in third century Christianity. In Tertullian's writings early in the third century, we find both a vigorous polemic against the idea of Mary's virginitas in partu and apparent ignorance of her virginitas post partum. In his treatise De carne Christi Tertullian attacks several Gnostic writers, each of whom denied the reality of Jesus' human flesh and, therefore, the reality of the resurrection.71 In defense of Jesus' real humanity Tertullian argues for a genuine birth of the saviour from the virgin Mary. He does not deny the virginal conception of Jesus; in fact, he vigorously affirms it, drawing on the Eve/Mary parallel which he inherited from Justin and Irenaeus.72 But Tertullian refuses to 68. In classic Encratite theology, such as that represented by Julius Cassian in the late second century, sexual differentiation is a result of the fall of the soul into matter. Cf. Clement of Alexadandria, str. 3.91-93 and 100. For an attempt to define the primary features of Encratism along these lines, see the collection of essays edited by Ugo Bianchi, La tradizione dell'Enkrateia. Motivazioni ontologiche et protologiche (Rome: Edizioni dell'Ateneo, 1985), especially the Final Document of the colloqium, pp. xxvii—xxix (English). 69. The supposition of an Encratite origin for the Protevangelium is attractive for another reason. Such a provenance would explain the document's odd position in second century literature. It has long been recognized that the text is neither Gnostic, nor Jewish-Christian, nor truly orthodox. An Encratite origin offers a plausible explanation both of the document's content and of its uniqueness in second century Christianity. 70. The Protevangelium is first mentioned by Clement of Alexandria, who does not pursue any of its themes. See str. 7.93-94 (GCS 172.66). Later Western tradition was sometimes hostile to it: the so-called Gelasian decree of ca. 500 regards the text as an apocryphon which "the catholic and apostolic Roman church does not in any way receive"; cited in Brown et al., Mary in the New Testament, 248. 71. He has in mind the views of Marcion, Apelles, and Valentinus. See earn. Chr. 1.2-4 (CChr 2.873-74). 72. Car. Chr. 17 (CChr 2.905). 66 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES extend the virginity of Mary to encompass either the circumstances of Jesus' birth or Mary's post partum marital life. Both points must be examined. Tertullian's reluctance to accept the virginitas in partu stems from his anti-gnostic agenda. The notion of a sudden "appearance" of Jesus seemed rather like the theory of Marcion that Jesus simply "appeared" in the thirtieth year of his life.73 Tertullian resisted such ideas first of all because they were not contained in scripture. But he also had objections based on more strictly doctrinal grounds: the virginity in partu implied that Jesus' birth was something other than a truly human one, and it was precisely this sort of view which Tertullian was opposing in De came Christi.7* Tertullian argued that the gnostic rejection of the flesh of Christ was based on their repudiation of nature, and especially their aversion to the embarrasing physical conditions surrounding human birth.75 Against the gnostic position Tertullian presented the traditional orthodox response: what was not assumed was not healed. Christ loved humanity in its fullness, Tertullian argued, and he has redeemed both the flesh and the processes of human birth by choosing to undergo both of these himself. On this point Tertullian stands in fundamental agreement with the argument of Jovinian, who regarded the virginitas in partu as a position which could only rest on dubious christological grounds. On the subject of the virginity of Mary post partum, Tertullian takes a less aggressive stance. He nowhere attacks it explicitly; indeed, he seems to show no awareness that such an idea existed at all. Tertullian simply assumes that the "brothers and sisters" of Jesus mentioned in the gospels are Jesus' real biological brothers and sisters.76 Just as Mary conceived virginally, but gave birth in a normal human manner, Tertullian maintained, so after the birth of Jesus she remained married to Joseph and bore other children.77 Tertullian gives no indication that the post partum virginity of Mary was a doctrine held by any orthodox Christians. Indeed, his assurmp73. See, for example, Marc. 1.19 (CChr 1.459-60), 3.11 (CChr 1.521-23), 4.7 (CChr 1.553). 74. The argument from scripture occurs in car. Chr. 7 (CChr 2.886-89), regarding the "brothers and sisters" of Jesus; the doctrinal argument occurs in car. Chr. 23 (CChr 2.914-15). 75. See car. Chr. 4 (CChr 2.878-79). 76. ¡bid. 7 (CChr 2.886-89). 77. This is implied in car. Chr. 23; more clearly in mo«. 8. The point is made explicit in Marc. 4.19. Against the Marcionites who cite the words "Who are my mother and brothers?" to argue that Jesus had no human relations, Tertullian argues that the true meaning of the text is that Jesus prefers the relationship of faith to one of blood. HUNTER/HELVIDIUS, JOVINIAN, ON MARY'S VIRGINITY 67 tions about Mary's other children confirm Helvidius' view that the doctrine was not widely held in the West prior to the fourth century. There is, however, one Eastern writer, Origen, whose views on the ques- tion of Mary's virginity diverged somewhat from those of Tertullian. Origen was the first Christian writer outside of the Protevangelium to maintain the virginity of Mary posr partum, and his influence on the subsequent tradition, East and West, was immense.78 Origen's belief in Mary's perpet- ual virginity, like that of the Protevangelium, was closely related to his ascetical theology.79 His most extensive discussion of Mary's posr partum virginity occurs in his Commentary on Matthew.80 After stating that many of Jesus's contemporaries believed him to be the son of Joseph and Mary, Origen notes that some say the brothers of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a previous marriage, basing their view on a tradition in the Gospel According to Peter and the Book of James. "Those who say so," Origen writes, "wish to preserve the honor of Mary in virginity to the end, so that that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word which said: 'The Holy Spirit shall come upon you, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow you' (Lk 1:35), might not know intercourse with a man after that Holy Spirit had come upon her and the power from on high overshadowed her."81 Origen goes on to provide his own opinion on the matter: "I think it is in harmony with reason that Jesus was the firstfruits among men of the purity which consists in chastity, as was Mary among women. For it would not be pious to attribute to anyone but to her the firstfruits of virginity."82 As this text shows, Origen's belief in Mary's virginity post partum depends directly on his understanding of the virginal conception itself. Because of the special sanctity caused by the descent of the Holy Spirit and the Logos into Mary's flesh, it was unseemly, in Origen's view, that Mary should afterwards sully her flesh by having marital relations with Joseph.83 78. Campenhausen, Virgin Birth, 57-63. A fine summary of Origen's views on Mary can be found in the introduction by H. Crouzel, "La théologie mariale d'Origène," in Origène. Homélies sur s. Luc, SC 87 (Paris, 1962), 11-64. 79. Crouzel, "La théologie mariale," 35. Origen is the first writer to refer explicitly to the Protevangelium. 80. See also/o. 1.4.23 (SC 120.70-72), where Origen maintains that "Mary had no other children other than Jesus, according to those who think properly about her" and horn, in Lc. 7.4 (SC 87.158), where, like the Protevangelium, Origen believes Jesus' siblings to be children of Joseph by a previous marriage. 81. Comm. in Mt. 10.17 (SC 162.216). 82. Ibid. 83. Cf. Crouzel, "La théologie mariale," 39. 68 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES Behind Origen's insistence on Mary's perpetual virginity there lies a fairly pessimistic evaluation of human sexual relations.84 He often speaks of "a sort of defilement" that accompanies all acts of sexual intercourse, even legitimate ones in marriage.85 This defilement, according to Henri Crouzel, which is distinct from actual sin, seems to be linked to the very ambiquity of living in the flesh itself.86 Furthermore, Origen had a notion of original sin that was linked to the process of human sexual generation. The virginal conception of Jesus was necessary for Origen, because the taint of sin was transmitted to every child born of the sexual act; therefore, Jesus had to have been conceived virginally to ensure that he was free of this taint.87 Origen's belief in Mary's post partum virginity, therefore, was inseparable from his notion that all sexual relations were somehow contaminating.88 It is significant, I believe, that an interest in Mary's perpetual virginity emerges first in those writers (and, it seems, only in those writers), like the author of the Protevangelium and Origen, who link sexual relations very closely with original sin. If the Protevangelium is truly Encratite, then its presuppositions about creation, sin, and sexuality are not far from those of Origen. In both cases we have the idea of an originally spiritual and sexless state of Adam and Eve in paradise. Material existence and consequently sexuality are symptomatic of the primal sin and are, quite literally, a result of the fall of the soul into matter. In both Encratism and Origenism, we have the notion of some taint of the original sin being transmitted via sexual procreation.89 And for both the Encratite and for Origen, these 84. See the extensive discussion in H. Crouzel, Virginité et manage selon Origène (Paris and Bruges: Desclée de Brouwer, 1962), 49-66. 85. Comm. in Mt. 17.35 (GCS 40 [10].698-99). 86. Crouzel, Virginité, 64—66. As Crouzel has described it, every act of a human being in the flesh is subject to some taint of egoism and concupiscence, that is an idolatrous tendency to substitute the material for the spiritual. Sexual relations in Origen's view were merely a more intensive example of the same impurity that infects all human actions. 87. Cf. Crouzel, Virginité, 53: "Pour Origène et beaucoup de ses successeurs le péché originel ne se transmet donc pas seulement par l'hérédité, ou par l'appartenance à l'humanité, solidaire de la faute d'Adam: il est lié au mode habituel de la génération humaine. La souillure des relations sexuelles, même licites, contamine en quelque sort l'enfant. Elle empêche, en outre, la prière." He cites Origen's horn, in Lev. 8.2-3 (SC 287.10-22). It should be noted, however, that Origen is equally insistent on the freedom of the human spirit that persists despite its habitation in the human body. See prin. 3.2. 88. Crouzel, Virginité, 52; citing Origen, horn in Lev. 12.4 (SC 287.176-78). 89. The link between the Encratite view of original sin and all later accounts, especially Augustine's notion, has been argued by Pier Franco Beatrice in Tradux peccati. HUNTER/HELVIDIUS, JOVINIAN, ON MARY'S VIRGINITY 69 theories undergird an ascetical theology that sees virginity as the privileged way to recapture the original state of spiritual union with God. The virgin Mary, both in the conception of Jesus and in her subsequent virginal life, becomes the prototype (or, as Origen said, the "firstfruits") of this virginal life. If Origen insisted that Mary remained ever virgin, we must note that he did not believe that this extended to her physical integrity in the process of giving birth to Jesus. Like Tertullian before him, Origen was anxious to maintain the genuine corporeality of Jesus' human existence against those, such as Marcion and Apelles, who taught that he had a purely spiritual or astral body.90 Origen therefore insisted that Jesus' body truly "opened" the womb of Mary, which had not been opened by sexual union.91 In this way, Origen argued, Jesus truly fulfilled the Jewish law stating that "every male offspring that opens the womb belongs to the Lord. "92 In every other case it is sexual intercourse that opens the womb, Origen argued, but Jesus was the first to open the womb of Mary. To sum up this brief survey of Marian theology, it is fair to say that the doctrines of Mary's virginity post partum and in partu have only a fragile basis in the tradition of the first three centuries. The Protevangelium of James is virtually unique in its description of the physical integrity of Mary's womb after the birth of Jesus. Both Tertullian and Origen associate this view with the docetic christologies of Marcion and Apelles. There is somewhat greater diversity on the issue of Mary's posr partum virginity, although here, too, the evidence is remarkably sparse. Except for Origen and the Protevangelium, the doctrine is virtually absent from both Western and Eastern sources prior to the fourth century.93 And in the two sources where the posr partum virginity is important, it appears to rest on either Encratite or Origenist accounts of the origin of sin and sexuality. Alle fonti della dottrina agostiniana del peccato originale, Studia PatrÃ-stica Mediolanensia 8 (Milan: Vita e Pensiero, 1978). I am not convinced by the full sweep of Beatrice's argument, although the similarities between the Encratite and the Origenist view are indisputable. Both may ultimately be traceable to Platonic and Philonic notions. 90. Horn, in Lc. 14.4 (SC 87.220-22). 91. Ibid. 14.8 (SC 87.226): Matris vero Domini eo tempore vulva reserata est, quo et partus editus, quia sanctum uterum et omni dignatione venerandum ante nativitatem Christi masculus omnino non tetigit. A thorough discussion of Origen's view of Mary's in partum virginity can be found in Crouzel, "La théologie mariale," 40—48. 92. Exod 13:2; Num 8:16. 93. Not even writers with a strong interest in virginity, such as Methodius of Olympus in the East or Cyprian and Novatian in the West, pay any attention to the perpetual virginity of Mary. 70 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES CONCLUSION What light do these earlier traditions shed on the arguments of Helvidius and Jovinian in the fourth century? At the very least it can be said that when Helvidius denied the virginity of Mary post partum or when Jovinian denied the virginity in partu, they were both appealing to positions which had a genuine place in the tradition of the early church. When Helvidius cited the evidence of scripture and the tradition of the Western church regarding Mary's other children, he had a legitimate argument which Jerome, for all his efforts, could not deny.94 When Jovinian noted that the virginity of Mary in partu espoused by Ambrose bore a strong resemblence to Manichean teaching, he had a strong precedent behind him, both in Tertullian in the West and in Origen in the East. Viewed in the light of the earlier tradition, the ascetical developments on Mary's virginity would have appeared to many to be incautious innovations. Furthermore, it is clear that both Helvidius and Jovinian were responding to aspects of ascetical teaching that were theologically problematic. It was difficult to articulate coherently the idea of the "superiority" of virgin- ity over marriage without either depreciating marriage and sexuality or introducing odious distinctions within the church. This was essentially the point being made by Helvidius and Jovinian. The appearance of Augustine's De bono coniugali and De sancta virginitate early in the fifth century reveals how much dissatisfaction there was with the solutions of Ambrose and Jerome.95 And the reappearance of the issue of sexuality and original sin in the later phases of the Pelagian controversy is an indication of how deeply troubling this linkage between sexuality and sin was to Western Christians. Finally, this essay has illustrated how far Marian theology and piety had travelled from the New Testament to the late fourth century. The symbol of Mary's virginity, in Jerome and Ambrose, came to bear a significance profoundly different from that which it had borne in previous Christian tradition. What was once a testimony to the presence of God in Christ had 94. Recent Roman Catholic scholarship on the New Testament has begun to acknowledge that Helvidius may have been correct in his understanding of Jesus' "brothers." See, for example, John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew. Rethinking the Historical Jesus (New York: Doubleday, 1991), vol. 1, The Roots and the Problem of the Person, 31832. 95. On this point see the telling remark of R. A. Markus, The End of Ancient Christianity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 45: "Augustine's rehabilitation of the married state is a thinly veiled answer to Jerome's denigration (vituperatio) of it: his covert work Against Jerome. " Throughout his career Augustine found it necessary to distance himself from the ascetical theology of both Jerome and Ambrose. HUNTER/HELVIDIUS, JOVINIAN, ON MARY'S VIRGINITY 71 become an affirmation of absence, an emblem of exclusion and closure; what was once a sign of salvation extended to all became a symbol of holiness possessed by the few. Once it was extended beyond the scope of its originally christological meaning, the doctrine of Mary's virginal integrity became, ironically, divisive. David G. Hunter is an Associate Professor of Theology at the University of St. Thomas