Comments

As an evangelical who is currently in graduate school studying the Church fathers, I applaud Wheaton for their foresight in leading the way in evangelical studies of patristics. The history of the Church is our history! I encourage everyone reading to pick up Robert Wilken's book, the Spirit of Early Christian Thought. There is no better introduction to the heart and devotion of the Church fathers.

Posted By: Blake Hartung | November 6, 2009 8:46 PM

Maybe that the people are seeking real spiritual truth, and desire to worship Him is spirit and truth, not in a “church” made with hands, but really desire to seek Him and His will. Goed will always answer the ones who believe that He Is, and that He Is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him.

Maybe it is time to put out the political feel good sermons, get off of the milk and get into the meat of the Word of God.

Posted By: acai | November 6, 2009 10:16 PM

After I studied the Fathers, I became an Orthodox Christian.

Posted By: EO | November 7, 2009 11:47 AM

How do Evangelicals honestly deal with the Catholicism of the Fathers? I couldn't without becoming Catholic. I predict that many Catholic conversions will result from this, which I think is wonderful.

Posted By: John | November 7, 2009 12:17 PM

The "Catholicism of the Fathers"? Talk about a complete anachronistic view of church history! Time to read up on your church history, John.

Posted By: MS | November 7, 2009 2:33 PM

This has been a huge challenge for me after attending a PCA for about 5 years. I am a 'born again christian' and still prefer using that term but my earlier years in most of my churches rarely spoke of the church fathers that I can remember.

Posted By: Sonya | November 7, 2009 5:48 PM

I think the emergence of the ancients is a huge benefit and blessing. I have the entire Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture and it has been an added resource to my study and teaching. Wheaton is doing all Christian study a favor, but isn't alone in their stand in reintroducing younger evangelicals to the Fathers. In my experience, I have noticed that many conservative, Protestant schools (ones either friends/myself attended) tend to go from Acts to the Reformation to the complete neglect of the Fathers. I was amazed at the depth and breadth of wisdom I found in my seminary readings of the Fathers. Not books about their writings, but their actual writings. Every evangelical needs to dive in and read the Fathers for the betterment of themselves and their congregations.

Posted By: Scott E | November 7, 2009 6:27 PM

I invite all my Christian brothers to attend a Divine Liturgy at a local Orthodox Church. The preaching is often informed by Patristic commentary. My church is Holy Trinity Orthodox Church in East Meadow, NY. "Come and see".

Posted By: Mark V. | November 7, 2009 8:54 PM

Wheaton invites Robert Wilken (Catholic) to be the speaker at the opening of this laudable project. Wheaton has, I understand, a large collection of Tolkien's (Catholic) writings. Will the college at last permit Catholic faculty? I would in no way argue that such a center cannot succeed without Catholic faculty, but the perspective that the Catholic scholar brings to this area is, I would argue, deeper and richer than that of evangelical scholars in the area of Patristics.

Posted By: Peter | November 8, 2009 9:22 AM

I think that this is good and long overdue.
However, credit must be given to Evangelical theological colleges (I know such places, although I don't know about America) where study of patristic theology is part of the curriculum.

Just a word to those who think of moving (or maybe already did) towards an "Orthodox church". I am in no position to judge, I'm only expressing an (relatively informed) opinion.
Remember what Jesus said, that we will know the "prophets" by their fruits (Matt.7).
It's the valid, biblical method of testing ALL of them, from any denomination.

Do not rush to jump into something before you know very well where you are jumping.

Look carefully at their fruits, in our case, the Orthodox churches, their leaders' personal lives, their communities, their believers' lives, the societies they created, their ethics, work ethic, politics etc.
Exegesis and theology are important, but look also at the consistency between theology and praxis, not only in the present, but also in history. Not just in isolated cases, but in general, the majority, the big picture.

Visit two or three Orthodox countries in Eastern Europe, see how they live, talk to the local evangelicals, especially to former Orthodox believers, listen to their testimonies, ask questions, feel the Spirit...

I am not encouraging prejudice, but only trying to say:

"Look carefully and pray earnestly."

The more "mysterious” or "ancient” Orthodox church may seem very appealing and the Orthodox churches in America may be very different, but bear in mind that the real Orthodox Church is in Eastern Europe.
Make sure that you don't just become a statistic and propaganda ammunition for the preachers of Orthodox superiority (or, worse, exclusivism and intolerance) from the Orthodox countries, especially against the evangelicals there. In such cases, if we hurt "the least of His borthers" we are hurting Jesus Himself.
Do the hard homework first. You may be surprised by what you will find. You may find also important inconsistencies in their theology, contradictions with the apostolic Gospel. It’s such a crucial decision. Do not take it lightly.
May God graciously grant you His wisdom and guidance.
Sincerely, in Christ,

Mircea

Posted By: Mircea | November 8, 2009 1:32 PM

MS, What did John say that was wrong? What church did Gregory and Augustine belong to?

Posted By: J. Bob | November 8, 2009 7:52 PM

It is good to see "evangelicals" moving closer to the Catholic/Orthodox Tradition. The old time religeon is Catholic or Orthodox. This is historically indisputable.

Posted By: Rob | November 8, 2009 10:10 PM

The real Orthodox Church is not in Eastern Europe, its in the Middle East; and its the Patriarchate of Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem, and Constantinople. The Eastern European churches are fruits of the ancient churches. Orthodoxy however, is true because it is consistent and unchanging. In that sense, yes, its true.

In studying the Fathers, I would suggest that both an Orthodox and Catholic perspective come into play. The Catholics centre much of their school of thought on Augustine, whereas the Orthodox take on the Fathers seem to be more consistent with Scripture, especially on the chewy topic of salvation.

Posted By: Collin Michael Nunis | November 9, 2009 3:58 AM

I have been looking at Orthodoxy for a couple of years. The main attraction is patristic Christological and Trinitarian formulations and organic connection with that church. In order to accept their claim to be "the" ancient Christian church, there are undeniably troubling things that must be accepted, many which certainly are not patristic but developments.
Communication with angels and saints is one. I understand the idea of "communion of saints" as a fellowship of one living body in Christ in heaven and earth. What a blessed communion. But I was given a book that said we should be communing with our guardian angel every day. Not just invoking them to pray for us, but communicate with them! Same with the saints. Some of the tales about various degrees of bodily incorruption and myrrh-producing dead saints (only for a limited time and for limited witnesses).
Every convert must test the claims very carefully.

Posted By: Canadian | November 10, 2009 1:08 PM

This posting, like another in summer announcing the launch of this program, has brought out of the woodwork a host of persons who propose (solicitously) that the study of the Patristic period will inevitably lead one to Rome or Antioch. This is misguided for several reasons which need to be noted, because this 'inevitability' argument keeps resurfacing.

1. Classical evangelicalism has never been based on a repudiation of early Christianity. Until mid-twentieth century, most evangelical homes possessed condensed versions of Foxe's Book of Martyrs --often in a Moody Press edition. Martyrs of the Patristic period were very well represented in Foxe. There were a few decades in early 20th century when all Protestantism --liberal also-- neglected the early church, but this was unrepresentative. Broadly evangelical scholars stood behind the production of the 19th century editions of the Fathers which are still in use.
2. The Reformation traditions --Anglican, Lutheran, Reformed and Anabaptist-- were all informed by a desire to recapture the best of the early church, while filtering out accretions not consistent with Scripture.
3. Catholicism -- contrary to popular misconception -- does not tie itself to the 'mast' of the Patristic period, because it accepts a supernaturally-guided growth of sacred tradition extending well beyond the Early Church.
4. Orthodoxy has the opposite problem -- having difficulty recognizing legitimate theological advance and development beyond the age of the Fathers.

This being said, it is time to say to all 'inevitabilists', please 'move over' and stop treating the Patristic period as your exclusive province. It is the common heritage of all bona fide Christian believers, and a reservoir out of which we can all draw helpful resources. Evangelicals tread on no one's 'turf' when they determine to study it.

Posted By: Ken Stewart | November 10, 2009 8:57 PM

One of the best books on Orthodoxy..is by Jim Forest, called Confession. In fact he talks at length his friendship with Fr. Henri Nouwen. In my own studies I've found myself returning time and time again to the Church Fathers. Those writings, the letters to their churches are a true font of history and faith ever alive. Christ did not leave us saying you'll have one Bible, rather as it is with Native Americans, the faith is meant to be passed on by the elders telling the stories, the truths from one generation to the next. I became Catholic, then an Ecumenical Franciscan partially due to Apostolic Tradition, Apostolic Authority and the faith as handed down to us via that ever living line of teaching and faith. I find too many protestant churches that boast we worship with the KJV only... .they seem to worship a Book rather then God.. rather then Jesus.. .! Our faith is a living faith, the Holy Spirit is among us now.. so what was written in the first century is still being written... !
Fr. Jim
by the way I adopted the Orthodox style of reconciliation as Jim Forest in his book talks about. Never was comfortable with the standard Roman view of confession. Also Fr. Joe Girzone has written the best book on the teachings of Jesus I've yet to find, just released in Oct.

Posted By: Fr. Jim Waters, FBS, PhD | November 11, 2009 9:33 PM

I totally agree with the brother who said the fathers are for everyone. During a sabbatical I read an anthology of the early fathers (The Roots of Christian Mysticism) and it changed my life. I did study some orthodox and catholic beliefs after that but realized that some problems still existed.
I am still happily evangelical and charismatic (whatever that means) but love the fathers. I also realize that not everything THEY said or did was necessary biblical either. But they had a richness in prayer, meditatio and scripture study which seems almost unheard of today. We make everything co cerebral. They played it close to Jesus' vest. I like that. it's the way I'm trying to live.
-Russell Willingham

Posted By: Russell Willingham | November 12, 2009 4:03 PM

Martin Chemnitz's four-volume Examination of the Council fo Trent is a searching critique of Roman Catholicism informed by deep familiarity with the Fathers. Acquaintance with Chemnitz would, I think, have been worthwhile for many persons considering conversion to Rome. Chemnitz is an adherent of the Lutheran Confessions. The largest "Lutheran" denomination in the US, the ELCA, has departed from those confessions.

A Roman Catholic editor prepared a fascinating three-volume set, The Faith of the Early Fathers, which enables one to track the first appearances in patristic literature of hundreds of specific doctrinal points. It is interesting to see how early Baptismal regeneration (which is Scriptural) is, and how late some of the distinctively Roman doctrines are.

Posted By: Extollager | November 15, 2009 12:53 PM

Just a point of interest...The Center for Early Christian Studies at Wheaton was initially funded by a Greek Orthodox couple, is headed by an Evangelical scholar, and invited a Roman Catholic scholar to deliver the inaugural address. How's that for embracing a common heritage?

Posted By: Mark | November 16, 2009 6:19 PM

Extollagar writes that baptismal regeneration is scriptural. Does this include infants/children being christened/baptized? If they never, as responsible persons, later receive/follow Christ, do they then become de-regenerated? Doesn't John 1:13 teach that becoming a Christian follows a personal decision, and Matthew 28:19 that (water) baptism follows conversion?

Posted By: Peter | November 25, 2009 9:53 PM

Robert Louis Wilken is actually a Catholic convert, coming into the Church from a Lutheran background.

I was also raised Lutheran, became an evangelical, and after discovering the writings of the early Church connected the dots and realized the Bishop of Rome was the answer to the prayer for unity in John 17.

I challenge anyone to read the canons (that is, the laws for day-to-day church life) passed by the Fathers of the early councils (Nicea, Laodica, Phrygia, Constantiople, Chalcedon, etc). What you will find there reflects a church life and--most importantly--an assumption of the nature of the church vastly different than what is taught in 'non-demoninational' churches today.

Posted By: Jack | November 29, 2009 12:52 PM

All Christians, not only Evangelicals, will find that the early Church Fathers taught and practiced differently than their own Church does.

Problems for Roman Catholics include:

(1) Early Christians did not believe that the Bishop of Rome was the infallible leader of the whole Church. It seems unlikely that anyone will come to believe in this Roman doctrine due to studying the history of the papacy (see, e.g., the relevant books by J.N.D. Kelly, Klaus Schatz, Eamon Duffy, etc.).

(2) Early Christians did not believe in the Immaculate Conception of Mary. It was invented by Eadmer c. AD 1100.

(3) Although the Old Testament (OT) canon approved by the Council of Trent is the same as Augustine’s, it is considerably longer than the OT canons of most fourth-century Church Fathers, including those of Cyril of Jerusalem, Hilary, Athanasius, Gregory of Nazianzus, Rufinus, Amphilochius, Epiphanius, and Jerome, all of whom excluded the Deuterocanonical books from the canon. [The Eastern Orthodox are currently moving towards the “Protestant” OT canon, according to Timothy Ware, Bradley Nassif (Eastern Orthodox), J.C. Turro, and Raymond F. Collins (Roman Catholics), among others.]

Problems for both Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox include:

(1) The early Church Fathers taught that Mary was not free from sin (see Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Hilary of Poitiers, Basil, John Chrysostom). Mary’s sinlessness seems to have been invented by Ambrose.

(2) The Assumption of Mary was unknown to the early Church Fathers. The first person in the West to mention the Assumption was Gregory of Tours (AD 590). The earliest non-pseudonymous references from the East also come from the late sixth century: Theodosius, Coptic Pope of Alexandria, wrote a homily on the Dormition and Assumption in AD 566 or 567.

(3) The Perpetual Virginity of Mary seems to have been invented in the mid- to late second century. See the post by Phil W (July 14, 2009 12:57 PM) at:
http://blog.beliefnet.com/bibleandculture/2009/07/the-dead-shall-have-their-say---more-on-the-james-ossuary_comments.html

(4) The use of images in worship was prohibited by the early Church Fathers. According to Clement of Alexandria, the law “teaches wisdom by abstinence from sensible images.” Tertullian urged his readers to “make not any likeness in opposition to the law.” Origen claimed that Christians avoid “temples, altars, and images.” According to Henry Chadwick, “In fact, the only second-century Christians known to have had images of Christ were radical Gnostics, the followers of the licentious Carpocrates. … The Spanish council of Elvira recorded its shocked disapproval of some churches with paintings on the walls … Epiphanius of Salamis … was horrified to find in Palestine a curtain in a church porch with a picture of Christ or some saint.”

(5) That there are seven sacraments was first proposed by Peter Lombard in the twelfth century. The Orthodox churches adopted the list of seven sacraments in the seventeenth century. For Cyril of Jerusalem, Ambrose, and Cyril of Alexandria, there were three sacraments: baptism, confirmation or chrism, and the Eucharist. John of Damascus wrote that there were two sacraments.

Although this list could go on, these are sufficient to show that differences between Evangelical Protestantism on the one hand and Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy on the other hand are often the result of Evangelicals following the older traditions. Therefore, in many (but not all) ways, Evangelicalism is the tradition that is most like the early Church. Therefore, it is not reasonable for an Evangelical to convert to either Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy as a result of studying the early Church.

Posted By: Phil W | November 30, 2009 6:04 PM

Actually, the "Church Fathers" were quite Catholic. The sinlessness of Mary, her perpetual virginity, and her co-mediation are all of early origin. One of the allures of Catholic teaching is its rich history. Many evangelicals convert as a result of reading the Church Fathers.

Bottom line is that the Church Fathers were quite Mary-centric. Both Orthodox and Catholic traditions hold to the importance of Mary in salvation. In reality, the gospel was gradually contaminated by the very Church Fathers that are being studied. Paul, Peter, John and Jude all warned of the imminent invasion of false teachers into the church. The main culprit is the addition of Sacred Tradition to revealed truth. Mary is not mentioned from the birth of the Church in Acts 1 to the glorification of the saints in Rev. 22 (other than Rev. 12's historical reference). And yet Mary is deemed essential to salvation. The Church Fathers must be studied with great caution, comparing what they taught with Scripture, accepting what agrees, and discarding the chaff of unbiblical traditions.

The Mary of the bible has been hijacked and turned into an immaculately conceived, sinless, perpetual virgin, co-mediatrix, co-redemptrix, queen of heaven. This Mary has been appearing throughout the world. In Fatima, the false Mary even demonically made those present believe that the sun spun and plunged to the earth. This false Mary is a type of the Catholic Church. Salvation is through Mary, as salvation is through the Catholic Church.

My dear evangelicals brethren, it is high time that we took back Mary.

Posted By: Dale Rudiger | December 3, 2009 7:38 PM

Dale wrote: “The sinlessness of Mary, her perpetual virginity, and her co-mediation are all of early origin.”

That depends on your definition of “early.” The sinlessness of Mary is first attested c. 360 by Ambrose. Her perpetual virginity is first attested c. 175 in the Protevangelium of James. The title “co-mediatrix” did not appear before the seventh century. And as I had mentioned, the Assumption was a late sixth-century idea and the Immaculate Conception was invented c. 1100.

Dale wrote: “Mary is not mentioned from the birth of the Church in Acts 1 to the glorification of the saints in Rev. 22 (other than Rev. 12's historical reference).”

Early commentators on Revelation 12 did not associate the “woman clothed with the sun” with Mary. Hippolytus, Victorinus, Methodius of Olympus, and Tyconius all interpreted the woman as the Church, but did not mention Mary in relation to the chapter. Although Quodvultdeus and Oecumenius interpreted the woman as Mary, Caesarius of Arles, Primasius, Andrew of Caesarea, and Bede all maintained that the woman is the Church. The Church Fathers did not see in Revelation a reference to a glorified Mary.

Posted By: Phil W | December 4, 2009 11:13 PM

If Copernicus was the first person to recognize and articulate the heliocentricity of the solar system, does that mean that "Copernicus invented the solar system"?

Posted By: Luce | December 6, 2009 9:40 PM

Well, I'm not Catholic and my own view is that Catholic doctrine did develop/change in ways that deviated from the primitive Church and the early Fathers. But almost every "contra Catholic" statement made here is inaccurate, especially with respect to Mary. Even when arguably correct statements are made (like the earliest written testimony regarding the perpetual virginity of Mary - an early evangelical and reformed belief, incidentally), the dates are moved to the out-most boundaries suggested by any scholar. Most of this stuff is lifted right from discredited anti-Catholic agit prop and conveniently ignores Eastern Fathers.

For example, the purity of Mary wasn't something invented by Ambrose: it appears to have been taken for granted by Christians, probably working off the Johaninne tradition. For example, Hippolytus, at the beginning of the 200s, asserts this without defense (or reaction):

"But the pious confession of the believer is that, with a view to our
salvation, . . . the Creator of all things incorporated with Himself a
rational soul and a sensible body from the all-holy Mary, ever-virgin,
by an undefiled conception, without conversion, and was made man in
nature, but separate from wickedness: the same was perfect God, and
the same was perfect man; the same was in nature at once perfect God
and man (Against Beron and Helix, Frag VIII).

"Thus, too, they preached of the advent of God in the flesh to the
world, His advent by the spotless and God-bearing Mary in the way of
birth and growth, and the manner of His life and conversation with
men, ... (A Discourse on the End of the World)."

This is all taken for granted as the normative view that Christians accepted at the time. Mary's "all holiness", her purity, ever-Virginity, are just as the root of the faith. It's impossible to engage with the Fathers and not understand how strongly and desperately they fought against innovation. It's inconceivable that they would have accepted new teachings on this dimension.

Posted By: Greg | January 23, 2010 1:52 PM

"Early commentators on Revelation 12 did not associate the “woman clothed with the sun” with Mary."

References to Mary as the Virgin or Virgin Mother and the Virgin or Virgin Mother as a symbol of the Church are used in the Johannine texts and the early Christian tradition employs this symbolism repeatedly, we see it in works like John, Revelation, Hermas's Shepherd, Ireneaus (also likely the author of the The Letter of the Churches of Vienne and Lyons, which further underscores this point), and Clement of Alexandria. There are strong complements in the presentation of Mary as the New Eve. There is no reason to assert that the early Christians felt compelled to make categorical distinctions between images of Mary qua Virgin and Virgin as a type of the Church. Second, as with other comments, it omits some of the most important Fathers who made reference to the point in question (Athanasius the Great identifies the woman in Rev. 12 with Mary).

After carefully re-reading this thread, the thing that strikes me is how deeply anachronistic the views of many of the commentors are: to read back and validate modern views anachronistically in ancient authors is not how to understand the Fathers. They have to be approached on their own terms. Surprise: they weren't 20th Century American Protestants or Roman Catholics and often had views that were at odds with both traditions. They were, however, holy, God-bearing men who resisted innovation and taught, defended, and spread the Gospel as they received it. We can learn much from them, whereas I suspect there is little useful that we would have to offer to them.

Posted By: Greg | January 23, 2010 5:29 PM

Could you be more specific about which dates "are moved to the out-most boundaries suggested by any scholar"? As far as I'm concerned, the Protevangelium of James is our earliest source that supports the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. Its date of c. 175 is supported by Ronald F. Hock, Richard A. Norris (who both date it to 175-200), J. K. Elliott, Oscar Cullmann, Hans-Josef Klauck (all of whom date it to 150-200), Ron Cameron, Bart D. Ehrman (c. 150), Willem S. Vorster (160-200) and Paul Foster (175-225). So, c. AD 175 (+/- 25 years) seems like a pretty safe bet for a scholarly consensus.

Greg wrote: "Most of this stuff is lifted right from discredited anti-Catholic agit prop and conveniently ignores Eastern Fathers."

In addition to the Church Fathers themselves, my sources include: Stephen J. Shoemaker, Ancient Traditions of the Virgin Mary's Dormition and Assumption (Oxford University Press, 2002); Raymond E. Brown, Karl P. Donfried, Joseph A. Fitzmyer & John Reumann (eds.), Mary in the New Testament (Fortress Press, 1978); J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines (5th ed.; HarperCollins, 1978); Jaroslav Pelikan, Mary Through the Centuries (Yale University Press, 1996); Dwight Longenecker in Dwight Longenecker & David Gustafson, Mary: A Catholic-Evangelical Debate (Brazos Press, 2003); Tim Perry, Mary for Evangelicals (IVP Academic, 2006); John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew (Anchor Bible Reference Library; Doubleday, 1991), 1:318-332; R.L.P. Milburn, "The Historical Background of the Doctrine of the Assumption" in Early Christian Interpretations of History (A&C Black, 1954), reprinted in David M. Scholer (ed.), Women in Early Christianity (Garland, 1993); Scott Hahn, Hail, Holy Queen: The Mother of God in the Word of God (Doubleday, 2001).

I don't know which of these is considered "discredited anti-Catholic agit prop." And do all of these authors ignore the Eastern Fathers?

Greg wrote: "the purity of Mary wasn't something invented by Ambrose: it appears to have been taken for granted by Christians, probably working off the Johaninne tradition. For example, Hippolytus, at the beginning of the 200s, asserts this without defense (or reaction)"

First, how do you know that there was no reaction?

Second, isn't Discourse on the End of the World generally considered among the spurious writings attributed to Hippolytus? (Newadvent.org lists it as "pseudonymous", whereas ccel.org puts it among the "Dubious and Spurious Pieces.")

Third, have you taken into consideration the views of Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Hilary of Poitiers, Basil, and John Chrysostom? They seem to have been unaware that Mary was sinless/faultless. Could it really have been "the normative view that Christians accepted at the time" if these other Fathers were unaware of it?

Greg wrote: "as with other comments, it omits some of the most important Fathers who made reference to the point in question (Athanasius the Great identifies the woman in Rev. 12 with Mary)."

Could you please provide the reference for Athanasius? I've read pretty much every relevant scholarly book that I could find, but no one mentions Athanasius as having weighed in on the issue. Which other Fathers have I omitted? As far as I know, I mentioned all of the Fathers who made reference to the point in question.

Posted By: Phil W | January 24, 2010 11:47 PM

On a mobile, so this will be brief. It would be surprising that you lept to a defense of PEJ if you weren't aware that dates range as early as 140 on estimates. Since it obviously reflects prevailing beliefs and was used as Scripture in some canons, it is certainly of interest.

You can string together an incorrect narrative with reference to solid sources. Again, you make a specific claim about Ambrose. It's counterfactual, which is my main point. Whether all Fathers held Mary to be sinless is besides the point: clearly the prevailing view was that she was in some sense pure and/or purified. The idea that this was attributable to Ambrose is wrong

I will look up Athanasius when I have a chance - if memory serves this was from a Catholic apologia on the mass. For Athanasius on Mary, incidently, interested readers can trivially use google to see his hymning Mary as 'pure', comparing her to gold. For another significant father on Mary as a type of the Church see Ephrem of Syria.

Posted By: greg | January 25, 2010 11:04 AM

Still mobile. Quick google suggests likely reference from Athanasius as related to his commentary of the Psalm:

"The self-same who was born of the Virgin is, in truth, King and the Lord God. And on His account, she who gave Him birth is properly and truly proclaimed Queen, Lady and Mother of God….And standing now as Queen at the right hand of her Son the King of all, she is celebrated in Sacred Writ as clad around with the gilded clothing of incorruption and immortality, and surrounded with variety…Let us say then again and again as we look up to Our King, Our Lord and God, and to Our Queen, Our Lady and Mother of God: The Queen stood at thy right hand, in gilded clothing, surrounded with variety.

and

If the Son is a King, the Mother who begot Him is rightly and truly considered a Queen and Sovereign"

I detest this kind of 'proof texting' so will cease further - it is invariably misleading and a poor substitute for visiting the source. And it is absurd for me to play Catholic: whether Mary sinned or not is of limited interest to me, though I find the contra-Catholic position here to be at least as problematic.

A fair discussion of the image of Virgin, Church and Mary can be found in Behr, Mystery of Christ. You will also find Ephrem discussed there.

Posted By: Greg | January 25, 2010 3:25 PM

Greg wrote, regarding the Protevangelium of James: "... you weren't aware that dates range as early as 140 on estimates. Since it obviously reflects prevailing beliefs and was used as Scripture in some canons, it is certainly of interest."

As I mentioned, the vast majority of scholars date this work to the late second century. Who dates it to 140? Even if it were written as early as 140, no one living at that time could have known Mary, who must have died a century before it was written. It was probably written by fourth- or fifth-generation Christians. The Infancy Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Peter and the Gospel of Judas were written at about that time. The Gospel of Thomas was perhaps written earlier. Does the age of these works ensure their trustworthiness?

Why is it obvious that any of these works reflect prevailing beliefs? Who were these beliefs prevalent among? Can you name any Church Father (or council) who included the Protevangelium of James in their biblical canon?

Note that, according to Origen, only "some" believed that Jesus' brothers were from a former marriage; it was not a universal belief of the Church. Note also that Origen did not know of it as an Apostolic tradition; rather, he only knew it to be based on apocryphal gospels. (See Origen, Commentary on Matthew 10.17 [commenting on Matthew 13:55-56].)

Can you provide any evidence for your contention that I strung "together an incorrect narrative"? Can you string together a better narrative? One that actually takes the evidence into account?

Greg wrote: "clearly the prevailing view was that she was in some sense pure and/or purified. The idea that this was attributable to Ambrose is wrong"

I never made the claim that Ambrose was the first to call Mary "in some sense pure and/or purified." You've changed the subject. The fact is that most second- to fourth-century Church Fathers did not consider Mary sinless/faultless.

Greg wrote (in a previous post): "the purity of Mary wasn't something invented by Ambrose: it appears to have been taken for granted by Christians"

If by "purity" you mean "sinlessness" (which is what my claim was about Ambrose), then you are making a counterfactual statement, which is my main point. The evidence shows that your claims about "prevailing view" and "taken for granted" are false.

I've read about 25 modern commentaries on Revelation 12. Most scholars, including most Roman Catholic scholars, agree that there is no reference or allusion to Mary in Revelation 12. Here are some comments made by Roman Catholics: (1) Charles Homer Giblin writes that the Mariological interpretation is "almost certainly not intended by John of Patmos." (2) Raymond E. Brown writes: "The woman clothed with the sun, having the moon under her feet and on her head the crown of twelve stars, represents Israel, echoing the dream of Joseph in Gen 37:9 where these symbols represent his father (Jacob/Israel), his mother, and his brothers (the sons of Jacob who were looked on as ancestors of the twelve tribes)." (3) Pheme Perkins writes: "Verse 17 makes it clear that the woman stands for the people of God." (4) Wilfrid J. Harrington writes: "This woman is surely the bride, the heavenly Jerusalem (19:7-8; 21:9-10), antithesis of the harlot (Rome) (17:14; 18:16)." (5) Edmondo F. Lupieri writes: "It seems logical to conclude that the woman is a heavenly representation of Israel ... of that faithful Israel which is also true Christianity ..." (6) United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, New American Bible (Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, 1991), note for Revelation 12:1: "The woman adorned with the sun, the moon, and the stars (images taken from Genesis 37:9-10) symbolizes God's people in the Old and the New Testament." [If I had provided longer excerpts, it could be seen that while sources 1-3 mention but do not endorse the Mariological interpretation, sources 4-6 do not mention Mary at all in relation to this chapter.]

In the quotations that you provided, it does not appear that Athanasius makes any claim regarding the meaning of Revelation 12.

It seems that you did not write anything that actually goes against what I had written about Revelation 12 in a previous post:

"Early commentators on Revelation 12 did not associate the 'woman clothed with the sun' with Mary. Hippolytus, Victorinus, Methodius of Olympus, and Tyconius all interpreted the woman as the Church, but did not mention Mary in relation to the chapter. Although Quodvultdeus and Oecumenius interpreted the woman as Mary, Caesarius of Arles, Primasius, Andrew of Caesarea, and Bede all maintained that the woman is the Church. The Church Fathers did not see in Revelation a reference to a glorified Mary."

In my first post in this thread, I wrote: "All Christians, not only Evangelicals, will find that the early Church Fathers taught and practiced differently than their own Church does." So, yes, I am well aware that the early Church Fathers taught some things that I don't believe. But my list of problems for Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox still stands.

Posted By: Phil W | January 25, 2010 4:19 PM

Good grief. You've clearly personalized this comments section a bit: you may have missed the fact that you were not the only poster. Interested readers can find this dialogue played out repeatedly in forums where Protestants and Catholics clash. Nothing new here other than we all know Phil's reading list now...

In any case, I said I would check the Athanasius comment. I was able to find electronically the text: Hahn, Lamb's Supper, p 78. As far as I can tell he does not footnote it. Will double check when I get to a copy of the original.

Posted By: greg | January 25, 2010 7:35 PM

Greg wrote: "Good grief. You've clearly personalized this comments section a bit: you may have missed the fact that you were not the only poster."

Seriously? Haven't about 95% of your comments been directed specifically at me?

Yes, I see that Hahn counts Athanasius and Epiphanius among his supporters. Yet, he does not tell us where we can find their comments. I'm quite familiar with what Epiphanius said about the woman of Revelation 12, but it seems a bit dishonest to count him among the supporters of the Marian interpretation. As far as Athanasius is concerned, I'm suspecting that this is another case of sloppy "scholarship" by Hahn.

In his book Hail, Holy Queen, Hahn claims that Ambrose and Augustine were among those who support the Marian interpretation of Revelation 12. Again, he fails to even mention the titles of the alleged works. Certainly in the case of Augustine, Hahn quotes a pseudonymous work. Since Hahn appears to be the only author who is familiar with these instances where Athanasius and Ambrose support his views, I suspect that he is just naively turning to pseudonymous works yet again.

Of course, you can continue to ignore all of my questions; I doubt that many people are reading our comments anyway. But to recap some of the questions that you haven't answered:

Could you be more specific about which dates "are moved to the out-most boundaries suggested by any scholar"?

Which of the books that I've read count as "discredited anti-Catholic agit prop"?

Why did you quote pseudo-Hippolytus as if it were actually Hippolytus? (Is this an indication of the level of "scholarship" that you read?)

Why is it obvious that any of the Docetic or Gnostic works mentioned reflect prevailing beliefs? Who were these beliefs prevalent among? Can you name any Church Father (or council) who included the Protevangelium of James in their biblical canon?

Posted By: Phil W | January 25, 2010 10:50 PM