Leugen Kringledorf | June 6th, 2023
As previously discussed in Part I of this series, the Bible is sparse in its inclusion of Mary. While there are a few passages that show that Mary should be considered an important and necessary figure in the story of man's redemption, the bulk of Mariology fails to land solid ground within the Bible. Certain Marian dogmas like her perpetual virginity and bodily assumption cannot find any biblical support. The fact is all the authors of the New Testament never once advocated for belief in the prayerful assistance of Mary or her various Roman Catholic dogmatic attributes. So then, if the Bible is not the origin of such ideas, then from where did Mariology come? This article shall discuss the earliest accounts of various Mariological dogma and ideas, and the opinions of early Christians on these topics.
The concept of "perpetual virginity" entitles the totally kept virginity of Mary, the mother of Jesus. Roman Catholics believe that Mary maintained being a virgin throughout the entirety of her life, including through the birth of Jesus. As stated in the Roman Catholic Catechism,
"The deepening of faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess Mary's real and perpetual virginity even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made man. In fact, Christ's birth 'did not diminish his mother's virginal integrity but sanctified it.' And so the liturgy of the Church celebrates Mary as Aeiparthenos, the 'Ever-virgin."1
Roman Catholic apologists make claims that the Church has always taught that Mary was the "ever-virgin." Furthermore, they consistently maintain that the "brothers" of Christ were not half-brothers of Christ but rather cousins spawned from a former marriage of Joseph.
"The Church teaches that Mary remained a virgin throughout her life... Against this doctrine the objection is sometimes raised that the Bible mentions brothers and sisters of Jesus. The Church has always understood these passages as not referring to other children of the Virgin Mary. In fact, James and Joseph, 'brothers of Jesus,' are the sons of another Mary, a disciple of Christ, whom St. Matthew significantly calls 'the other Mary.' They are close relations of Jesus, according to an Old Testament expression." 2
As shall be seen, the idea that the Church has always maintained that the brothers of Christ are truly cousins is false. In fact, key early Christians clearly stated the exact opposite that the brothers of Christ are truly his brothers. But before discussing the thoughts of early Christians, the origin of this dogma must be investigated.
Origin
The dogma of perpetual virginity can be distinguished into two parts: virginitas post partum (after birth) and virginitas in partu (during birth). This distinction is important because virginitas post partum began development separately from virginitas post partum. In terms of origin, neither idea can be attributed to the first century. It is not until the second century that certain apocryphal works began to suggest any part of the perpetual virginity. Writings such as the Odes of Solomon and the Ascension of Isaiah, briefly mention that Mary gave birth without any pain and that after the sudden appearance of Jesus two months into gestation, Mary was found that "her womb was found as it was before she was with child," respectively.3,4 While these second century works may have influenced early Christian belief in virginitas in partu, by far, the most influential writing for both concepts came from The Protoevangelium of James.
The Protoevangelium of James (also referred to as the "gospel" or "proto-gospel") is generally considered to be a late second-century writing of probable Syrian origin.5 It is thought that this work might have been written by "radically ascetic, possibly Encratite," Syrian Christians.6 This work is regarded as the predominant influential work in terms of the perpetual virginity of Mary because of its distinct citation by Origen.7 The Protoevangelium of James is quite unique in that it is the first work to center around Mary before the birth of Jesus. The book establishes many key beliefs now present in the Roman Catholic church such as the birth of Mary, the names of her parents, and Mary's marriage with Joseph.8 Furthermore, this writing is the first to propose that Joseph had children in a marriage prior to his relationship with Mary and that Joseph's marriage with Mary was not a "true marriage" but rather that Mary was "given to Joseph only to be protected by him...."9,10
Furthermore, the book maintains that during the birth of Jesus, there was a sudden flash of light, and Jesus appeared before everyone present. After Jesus appears, a woman named Salome cannot believe that Mary is still a virgin and proceeds to insert her finger into Mary's womb to verify her virginity. At that time, Salome's hand becomes engulfed in flame, and she begins to cry out to God for forgiveness. An angel suddenly appears and tells Salome to hold Jesus. She does and is cured of her agony.11
The Protoevangelium of James is, as described by Hunter David, a "puzzling text." David writes,
"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 apocryphal 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. "12
However peculiar the text might be, it is quite troublesome that this text is used by Roman Catholics to support the concept of perpetual virginity. For starters, The Protoevangelium of James has key mistakes that do not line up with the canonical gospel accounts. As Philip Schaff points out, the book assigns the name "Joachim" to Mary's father instead of Eli (or Heli) as found in Luke 3:23.13 Furthermore, Mary is said to have given birth in a cave halfway to Bethlehem, which is in stark contrast to the account in Luke 2.14 Not only this but there is no account of Mary and Joseph trying to get a room at an inn nor is there any mention of Mary placing Jesus into a manger. And no gospel account includes a midwife during Jesus' birth or any investigation into Mary's virginity by a woman named Salome afterward. So it is incredible that Roman Catholic apologists such as Tom Nash are able to conclude that this work is "particularly reliable."15, 16
And if the discrepancies with the canonical gospels are not troubling enough, the Church has officially declared this work to be the handiwork of heretics. The Gelasian Decree (or Decretum Gelasianum de Libris Recipiendis et non-Recipiendis), self-reported to be the written declarations of "the council of Rome under Pope Damasus" distinctly assigns The Protoevangelium of James as an apocryphal work, which "is to be not merely rejected but eliminated from the whole Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church."17 The fact that over 1500 years later, this work is still being regarded as "reliable" by Roman Catholics highlights a grim interpretation of Church tradition. This work is unreliable and biased at best and should not be used to inform any doctrine of the Church. The entire book ought to be ignored.
Because of this, it is quite possible that the beginnings of the perpetual virginity of Mary were founded in a heretical, apocryphal work of the second century. However, despite the existence of this problematic writing, does this discredit the idea that the perpetual virginity of Mary was a unanimous concept amongst early Christians? While this book most certainly influenced the opinions of prominent early Christians such as Origen, the book's invalidation does not mean the Church did not believe this. Therefore, the legitimacy of this dogma shall be considered in the writings of the early Church.
Accounts in the Early Church
To the credit of Roman Catholic apologists, there were early Christians that did teach the perpetual virginity of Mary as either post partum or in partu or both. Writers such as Ambrose and Jerome were two of the predominant constituents of both concepts in the perpetual virginity of Mary, but their motivation for believing in Mary's perpetual virginity was driven by their highly ascetic ideals. Both Ambrose and Jerome considered virgins to be higher in status, and thus, to support their argument for the ascetic lives of those in the Church, they used the perpetual virginity of Mary as a key point.
"What was at stake was the absolute nature of the boundaries that separated the Catholic Church from the world, as well as those which rendered individual virgins irrevocably 'sacred' by reason of their vocation, and separate from their families. All forms of 'admixture'... were deeply repugnant to Ambrose. To avoid sexual intercourse was to avoid an act that involved 'mixing,' 'relaxing,' 'becoming unstrung.'... Hence it was essential for Ambrose to assert, against other Christians, that Mary had remained a perpetual virgin. Her body not only had been intact at the time that she had conceived Christ through the Holy Spirit... but it also had been exempted... from the breaking of the closed boundary of the flesh associated with normal childbirth."18
Mary was used as a motivation in the writings of Ambrose and Jerome for others to come and adhere to the ascetic life. However, there are a couple of things worth noting about the perceptions of early Christians on this topic. First, as can be seen in the quotes of early Christians referenced by Roman Catholic apologetical works, nearly every major proponent of Mary's perpetual virginity lived in either the fourth or fifth century. Not a single writing from the first or second century besides apocryphal works asserts this opinion. Second, while there were some in the Church that argued Mary's perpetual virginity, there were also those who dissented from this opinion.
Helvidius, Jovinian, Hegesippus, and Tertullian all maintained views against the perpetual virginity. Helvidius specifically held that the brothers and sisters of Jesus were His true siblings and not cousins.
"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... and Matthew 1:25... He also referred to the many texts of the NewTestament 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.)."19
Jovinian expressly saw heretical workings of the Manicheans in the perpetual virginity, and Augustine explains that this was because Jovinian thought that virginitas in partu was too close to the Manichean idea that Christ was merely a phantom and had no corporeal form.20 Hegesippus is reported to have believed that both James and Jude were true brothers of Christ.21 And Tertullian, in rallying against Gnostic writers, expresses his disagreement with the birth of Christ through unnatural means.22 The importance of these dissenting opinions cannot be overlooked. Both Hegesippus and Tertullian were writers of the second century, predating the predominant discussions found in the fourth and fifth centuries. The fact that only dissension or absence of the perpetual virginity can be found in the Christians of the second century demonstrates that this opinion was not commonplace. Furthermore, writers such as Helvidius and Jovinian show that the Church had not come to fully accept this idea by the fifth century.
So while it is true that prominent writers of the fourth and fifth centuries came to accept this idea, it is also true that there were others still earlier in the Church that did not. Because of this, it appears that the concept of the perpetual virginity of Mary evolved over the course of the Church as asceticism became more and more influential. Therefore, it seems likely that apocryphal works such as the Protoevangelium of James were the source of this dogma, and that this dogma was not passed on by the Apostles. And Origen nearly states this determination as true. Origen mentions in one of his commentaries of Matthew that "some say, basing it on a tradition in the Gospel according to Peter, as it is entitled, or The Book of James, that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honor of Mary in virginity to the end, so that that body of hers... might not know intercourse with a man after that the Holy Ghost came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her."23 Origen directly tells us that those wishing to support the claims of Mary's perpetual virginity were basing their beliefs on the traditions found within the Gospel of Peter and the Protoevangelium of James. Consequently, the inclusion of the perpetual virginity in apocryphal works, the lack of inclusion and dissension of the perpetual virginity in the writings of early Christians, and the direct statement of Origen all lean towards the conclusion that the perpetual virginity of Mary was founded by fringe cultures to support ascetic ideas.
On November 1st, 1950, Pope Pius XII established the bodily assumption of Mary as dogma in his Apostolic Constitution Munificentissiumus. Pope Pius XII writes,
"Hence the revered Mother of God, from all eternity joined in a hidden way with Jesus Christ in one and the same decree of predestination,(47) immaculate in her conception, a most perfect virgin in her divine motherhood, the noble associate of the divine Redeemer who has won a complete triumph over sin and its consequences, finally obtained, as the supreme culmination of her privileges, that she should be preserved free from the corruption of the tomb and that, like her own Son, having overcome death, she might be taken up body and soul to the glory of heaven where, as Queen, she sits in splendor at the right hand of her Son, the immortal King of the Ages."24
The bodily assumption of Mary is a dogmatic belief in the Roman Catholic church that at the end of Mary's life on Earth, her body and soul were taken up into heaven. The Roman Catholic catechism defines this explicitly.
"Finally the Immaculate Virgin... when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things, so that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son, the Lord of lords and conqueror of sin and death."25
Roman Catholics believe that Mary's body did not face corruption in the grave and was assumed into Heaven, similar to Enoch and Elijah. However, it is important to understand what this dogma does not specify. The dogma of the bodily assumption does not ascertain whether Mary physically died or not. Since Pope Pius XII dogmatic elevation of this belief, there are some in the Roman Catholic church that have started believing that Mary did not taste physical death. Yet, even Roman Catholic apologists agree that this opinion is false and that the early Christians were "unanimous" in teaching the "bodily death" of Mary.26 Nevertheless, the timing of this dogmatic definition is of great interest, for it is a great wonder how it took nearly 2000 years for the Marian assumption to be considered dogma by the Roman Catholic church. From where did this dogma come?
Origin
Similar to the dogma of perpetual virginity, the bodily assumption of Mary cannot be attributed to Scripture. The first time this concept appears is in certain apocryphal works present in the early Church. These works include writings such as the Book of Mary's Repose, the Account of John the Theologian on the Falling Asleep of Mary (also known as Psuedo-John), and the Six Books Dormition Apocryphon. Of these books, Pseudo-John and the Six Books Dormition Apocryphon are considered to be the earliest and most influential writings on Mariology and the bodily assumption dogma. While not considered to possess the same author, Pseudo-John is a more concise version of the Six Books Apocryphon, including many of the same accounts of miracles and actions performed by Mary and the Apostles. These two writings are held unique compared to other Marian works because they ascribe for the first time the direct commemoration of Mary. While writings such as the Protoevangelium of James certainly influenced (and continue to influence) the evolution of Mariology, they do not directly provide instruction for Marian commemoration, but both Pseudo-John and the Six Books Dormition Apocryphon do. For instance, in Psuedo-John, Mary professes a link between her blessing/intercession and an offering in her name.
"And again she [Mary] prayed, and said: O Lord Jesus Christ, who art all-powerful in heaven and on earth, in this appeal I implore Your holy name; in every time and place where there is made mention of my name, make that place holy, and glorify those that glorify You through my name, accepting of such persons all their offering, and all their supplication, and all their prayer."27
In the Six Books Dormition Apocryphon, more deliberate means of commemoration are prescribed, linking Marian devotion to success in the harvest. At one point, before Mary leaves this world, the Apostles came close to Mary and asked,
"Leave a blessing, my Lady Mary, to the world which thou art quitting, that those who make unto thee commemorations and offerings may be delivered from grievous afflictions."28
To this, Mary responds in prayer to Jesus by first celebrating how Jesus does receive the prayers of those on Earth. She then, however, goes into a lengthy reprise about commemoration towards herself by those on Earth.
"... make bad times cease from the earth when mankind, Lord, hold a commemoration to my body and spirit, which have quitted the earth; and make death and captivity and the sword and famine, and all calamities that befall mankind, pass away from the land in which offerings are offered to me; and make the pestilence cease from the land in which offerings are offered to me; and bless the garland of the year; and let these lands be preserved from locusts, that they may not devour them, and from blight and mildew and hailstones... Let the fields too, from which offerings are offered in honour of me, be blessed and bring forth the seeds which are concealed in the furrows; and let the vines, from which wine is pressed in my name, bear good bunches (of grapes)...." 29
Thus, commemoration through offerings to Mary is, according to the Six Books, a means of obtaining blessing upon oneself and harvest. The Six Books also, as Stephen Shoemaker points out, prescribes the direct observance of three commemorations of Mary linked heavily with agriculture.
"In what amounts to a brief liturgical handbook, the Six Books directs that three commemorations of the Virgin should be observed at different times in the year, and... the agricultural connections remain quite strong. The specific dates vary... but their approximate times and significance remain constant. The first feast ought to be celebrated on the Nativity... 24 December or 6 January... but since that date already held a major feast, Mary's memorial should follow two or three days later. The purpose of this commemoration is 'that by her pure offerings the seeds that the farmers have borrowed and sown will be blessed'... The second feast is on 15 May...and it is observed 'on account of the seeds that were sown, and on account of the flying and creeping locusts, that they might not come forth and destroy the crops...' Finally, a feast is appointed for 13 August, 'on account of the vines bearing clusters and trees bearing fruits...."30
The parallels here between the commemorations of Mary for agricultural welfare and the offerings of Roman pagans to the agricultural goddess Ceres are uncanny.31 But this deific perception of Mary is not limited to just agriculture. Mary performs many miracles before others. People attacked by robbers, a child stuck in a well, the chronically ill, and the destitute; all these people came to better outcomes by simply uttering, "My Lady Mary, mother of God."32 Mary would appear to them and perform miracles to alleviate their misfortune. And Mary did all this across the world while "the apostles were beside her"33 with the author of the Six Books intending that Mary was performing acts of projection, lending to a pseudo-omnipresent state.
Now, the culmination of both Pseudo-John and the Six Books is Mary's bodily assumption into Heaven with accounts completely at odds with Scripture. For example, Jesus is said to have come down from Heaven in His glorified body to retrieve Mary.
"... there appeared innumerable multitude of angels, and the Lord mounted upon cherubim in great power; and, behold, a stream of light coming to the holy virgin, because of the presence of her only-begotten Son, and all the power of the heavens fell down and adored Him... And the holy mother of God looked up, and saw in Him a glory which it is impossible for the mouth of man to speak of, or to apprehend. And the Lord remained beside her, saying: 'Behold, from the present time your precious body will be transferred to paradise, and your holy soul to the heavens to the treasures of my Father in exceeding brightness, where there is peace and joy of the holy angels... And the mother of the Lord answered and said to him, 'Lay Your right hand upon me, O Lord, and bless me.' And the Lord stretched forth His undefiled right hand, and blessed her."34
After Mary asks for Jesus' blessing on the world, Jesus says to Mary,
"Let your heart rejoice and be glad; for every favour and every gift has been given to you from my Father in heaven, and from me, and from the Holy Spirit: every soul that calls upon your name shall not be ashamed, but shall find mercy, and comfort, and support, and confidence, both in the world that now is, and in that which is to come, in the presence of my Father in the heavens."35
This remark from Jesus is beyond surprising in light of Scripture. The idea that the jealous God of the Old Testament would implore the calling on of another name is uncharacteristic. Jesus' words here also seem to suggest that special honor and praise will be given to Mary by the citizens of Heaven, which is a completely different picture than the one in Revelation where the hosts of Heaven bow and sing in worship of the Lamb.36 And the most astonishing thing about the accounts made in both Psuedo-John and the Six Books is that none of the Apostles in the New Testament mention any of what is described, despite Peter, Paul, and John having bore witness. The inclusion of these events by the Apostles in their writings would be tantamount proof of God's prescription of Mary as an intercessor with mankind, but that is not what is observed in Scripture. Instead, Acts is filled with the actions primarily of Peter and Paul and how their example pointed to God. Mary is mentioned but one time in Acts 1 as simply present.37 Therefore, given the stark differences between both these writings and Scripture, it is necessary to define both Pseudo-John and the Six Books as apocryphal heresy, and it is quite possible the Church already provided this definition in the Gelasian Decree.38 But despite the obvious problems with these writings, they are still being looked at by Roman Catholic apologists in a positive light.
T. L. Frazier, in his article "Assumptions of Mary," recounts how he as a former "evangelical/fundamentalist" came to believe in the bodily assumption of Mary.39 A significant section of his article outlines how the "Transitus Mariae (Passage of Mary) literature" began to change his opinion on the bodily assumption. Found amongst the "Transitus Mariae" cited by Frazier are both Pseudo-John and the Six Books.40 Frazier concludes that while "popular Christian literature has never been entirely reliable historically or theologically... Behind legends there is often some basis in fact. Even a small detail can be revealing."41 To a certain extent, Frazier is correct about the use of legends in societies. However, there is a logical problem with Frazier's opinion, for how does one ascertain what the factual basis is? If manuscripts like Pseudo-John and the Six Books are so corrupted by superstition and heresy, how can one possibly separate the miscible mixture of fact and fiction? Thus, using these manuscripts to support dogmatic claims is unbefitting, for one could easily cite the various writings of other pagans to come to believe in concepts such as reincarnation and multi-spouse marriages.
In summation, the earliest accounts of the bodily assumption of Mary are found within apocryphal works of the fourth century. The books themselves do not align with Scripture and appear to be of heretical origin. Therefore, any use of these works to support dogma should be reconsidered. But, much like the claims of Mary's perpetual virginity, the inclusion of the bodily assumption of Mary in apocryphal works does not definitively show the origin of the dogma as heretical. Thus, it is necessary to analyze the writings of early Christians to verify the authenticity of this belief.
Accounts in the Early Church
The first 400 years of Church history are nearly entirely silent on Mary's bodily assumption. No Apostle, Pope, bishop, or any prominent Christian wrote in support of Mary's assumption into Heaven. Not only this, but the bodily assumption is not included in any apocryphal work in this time as well. However, there were some writings that do appear to mention that certain heretical groups believed in this dogma. Epiphanius' writings, for instance, directly call out the practices of a heretical group called the "Collydrians" in association with Marian devotion seemingly linked with the bodily assumption. According to Epiphanius, the Collydrians were guilty of elevating Mary to a position of worship through a bread offering in Mary's name.
"For certain women decorate a barber's chair or a square seat, spread a cloth on it, set out bread and offer it in Mary's name on a certain day of the year, and all partake of the bread...."42
The significance of this statement should not be overlooked. Epiphanius wrote this around 375 A.D., which means certain apocryphal works such as Pseudo-John and the Six Books Dormition Apocryphon preclude it. Essentially, it seems likely that either Epiphanius was aware of or the Collydrians drew upon the Six Books Dormition Apocryphon. This is because the Six Books Dormition Apocryphon is the only writing that shows a definitive link between bread offerings at certain times of the year to Mary.
1 Roman Catholic Catechism. para. 499.
2 Grondin, Fr. Charles. Mary's Perpetual Virginity. Catholic Answers. https://www.catholic.com/qa/marys-perpetual-virginity
3 Odes of Solomon. 19:7-9. Translated by J. H. Charlesworth, The Odes of Solomon (Oxford: The Clarendon Press of Oxford University, 1973), 82.
4 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.
5 Ehrman, Bart. D. Lost Scriptures. Oxford University Press. 2003. pg. 63. Kindle Edition.
6 Hunter, David. Helvidius, Jovinian, and the Virginity of Mary in Late Fourth-Century Rome. John's Hopkins University Press. 1993, 1, 1, 41-71.
7 Origen. Commentary of the Gospel of Matthew, Book X. Translated by John Patrick. From Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 9. Edited by Allan Menzies. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1896.)
8 Some excerpts of the Gospel of James.
9 Some excerpts of the Gospel of James.
10 Hunter, David. Helvidius, Jovinian, and the Virginity of Mary in Late Fourth-Century Rome. John's Hopkins University Press. 1993, 1, 1, 41-71.
11 Some excerpts of the Gospel of James.
12 Hunter, David. Helvidius, Jovinian, and the Virginity of Mary in Late Fourth-Century Rome. John's Hopkins University Press. 1993, 1, 1, 41-71.
13 Schaff, Philip. History of the Christian Church. Logos Research Systems, Inc. 1997.
14 The Proto-Gospel of James. 17-18:1. Text provided by Ehrman, Bart. D. Lost Scriptures. Oxford University Press. 2003. pg. 63. Kindle Edition.
15 Nash, Tom. How Reliable is the 'Protoevangelium of James'?. Catholic Answers. https://www.catholic.com/qa/how-reliable-is-the-protoevangelium-of-james
16 Undoubtedly, it is evident that Roman Catholic apologists consider The Protoevangelium of James to be accurate. They regard this work as "an important historical document which supports the teaching of Mary's perpetual virginity...." See What the Early Church Believed: the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. Catholic Answers. 2004. https://www.catholic.com/tract/mary-ever-virgin. It is shocking that the bishop of San Diego at the time, Robert Brom, granted permission for this article to publish and that the Censor Librorum, Bernadeane Carr, was able to conclude "that the materials presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors."
17 Gelasian Decree. Tertullian Project. https://www.tertullian.org/decretum_eng.htm
18 Brown, Peter. The Body and Society. Columbia University Press. 1988. pg. 353-355.
19 Hunter, David. Helvidius, Jovinian, and the Virginity of Mary in Late Fourth-Century Rome. John's Hopkins University Press. 1993, 1, 1, 41-71.
20 Ibid. Also see, Augustine. Confession 5.10. Included in The Complete Ante-Nicene, Nicene and Post-Nicene Collection of Early Church Fathers. 2016. Kindle Edition. Augustine clarifies his former views as a Manichean and how before coming to Christ, he could not believe Christ had a physical body.
21 St. Hegesippus. Catholic Encyclopedia. https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07194a.htm
22 Tertullian. On the Flesh of Christ 1. Included in The Complete Ante-Nicene, Nicene and Post-Nicene Collection of Early Church Fathers. 2016. Kindle Edition. Tertullian evidently saw similar problems as Jovinian in the idea of virginitas in partu.
23 Origen. Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, Book X, 17. New Advent. https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/101610.htm
24 Pope Pius XII. Apostolic Constitution Munificentissimus. Libreria Editrice Vaticana. 1950.
25 Roman Catholic Catechism. para. 966.
26 Barbour, Fr. Hugh. Did Mary Die?. Catholic Answers. https://www.catholic.com/qa/did-mary-die
27 John the Theologian. The Account of John the Theologian on the Falling Asleep of Mary. New Advent. https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0832.htm#:~:text=John%20the%20Theologian%20of%20the,her%20should%20return%20to%20her.
28 Wright, William. Six Books Dormition Apocryphon: The Departure of my Lady Mary from this World. Book 4, para. 3. Mitchell and Hughes. 1865.
29 Ibid.
30 Shoemaker, Stephen J. Mary in Early Christian Faith and Devotion. Yale University Press. 2016. pg. 142-143. Kindle Edition.
31 Ceres oversaw the protection of crops during all agricultural phases, and Ovid describes Ceres as "content with little, provided that her offerings are casta (pure)." Linderski, J. Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt, Volume 16, Part 3. Wolfgang Haase. 1986, p. 1947, citing Ovid, Fasti, 4.411 - 416.
32 Wright, William. Six Books Dormition Apocryphon: The Departure of my Lady Mary from this World. Book 3, para. 28. Mitchell and Hughes. 1865.
33 Ibid. para. 29.
34 John the Theologian. The Account of John the Theologian on the Falling Asleep of Mary. New Advent. https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0832.htm#:~:text=John%20the%20Theologian%20of%20the,her%20should%20return%20to%20her.
35 Ibid.
36 Revelation 5.
37 Acts 1:14
38 Gelasian Decree. Tertullian Project. https://www.tertullian.org/decretum_eng.htm While it is not definitive, the books listed as works of heretics include "the book which is called the Assumption of Holy Mary." Given that this decree took place around 500 A.D., it is quite possible this is in reference to Pseudo-John.
39 Frazier, T. L. Assumptions About Mary. Catholic Answers. 1992. https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/assumptions-about-mary
40 Montague, James. R. The Apocryphal New Testament. Clarendon Press. 1924, pg. 194-224. Montague even states his belief that "the legend was first elaborated, if it did not originate, in Egypt: and therefore the Sahidic and Bohairic texts" should receive special attention.
41 Frazier, T. L. Assumptions About Mary. Catholic Answers. 1992. https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/assumptions-about-mary
42 Epiphanius. Panarion found in Williams, Frank. The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, Books II and III. Koninklijke Brill NV. 2013, pg 637.