The study of early Christianity is sadly not an objective enterprise. It is tainted like all of scholarship. In order to get research grant money, one needs new ideas (in Christian jargon we call new ideas “heresies.”) To have the support of one’s faith community, one must arrive at the conclusions that they already adhere to. Conservative Protestants are loathe to find any verification of Roman Catholic beliefs. Roman Catholics are looking for proof of the Papacy and Marian veneration in every feint mention in the writings of the fathers. Secular historians are simply all over the place on the topic.
Now enter Shoemaker’s book on Marian veneration. He claims that his book is literally the first study to truly focus on the origins of Marian veneration. Shoemaker has much peer-reviewed research on the subject and teaches at a university setting. Though in the book he identifies as a Christian, his work within a traditional university setting means that his colleagues are secular historians. This puts him squarely in the “liberal” camp in the spectrum of Christianity. This begs the question–what kind of thesis will he put forward being that he is not in either traditional camp?
Being that I left the ECLA years ago, my firsthand experience with liberal theology and the perspectives of secular historians is starting to become dated. When I first became a Christian I devoured my Harper Collins Study Bible (which Dr. Bill Cook boasts contains “the best” Biblical scholarship from “Protestants, Catholics, and even Atheists”) and read books from liberal theologians. I was interested in textual criticism and so I often went to the website EarlyChristianWritings.com and read up on the topic wherever I was able to.
From this limited experience, pardon me the following stereotype–secular historians and liberal theologians are at their core contrarians. They seek to discredit the views of conservative camps, whether they be Roman Catholic or Protestant, and present a “new” perspective. Often, their “insightful” research is often a rehashing of long disproven speculations from Germany in the 1800s. This is why we still have “academics” seriously entertaining late first and early second century datings for the Gospels and the New Testament epistles–though this is completely untenable even with the most cursory reading of the Apostolic Fathers and the internal evidence of the New Testament texts themselves.
Hence, with this understanding of secular historians’ take on things, we must understand Shoemaker’s history of Marian veneration.
Due to the contrarian nature of secular historians, one may be inclined to think that Shoemaker would offer research that would discredit the views of a standard Orthodox Christian. This would be only true in part, and in fact, his research actually does much to prove out historically the traditional, pre-Protestant understanding of the origins of Marian veneration.
Shoemaker’s thesis can be distilled down to this: Marian veneration is early–way early. It is the result in a growing fascination with the Virgin Mary beginning approximately a few decades after Paul penned his epistles. Saint Paul (allegedly) was at odds with the “Jerusalem faction” in Christianity and therefore downplayed the role of Jesus’ family, including His mother. After the diaspora of the Jews in 70 AD, the dispute between the Gentile and Jerusalem factions dissipated and this led to a renewed interest in Jesus’ family in the Gospels of Luke and John.
For no specific reason, this increased interest in Jesus’ family at large had a disproportionate emphasis on the Virgin Mary. Shoemaker finds this emphasis in the creedal statements in Saint Ignatius’ letters, in the writings of Justin Martyr and Irenaeus; and then finally in explicit assertions of Mary’s sinlessness and perpetual virginity in second century “proto-orthodox” Christian works.
Where Shoemaker’s thesis gets a little more “hazy” is in how this developing fascination with Mary evolved into outright veneration. The “proto-orthodox” sources are largely silent in the third century, which Shoemaker speculates is the result of their popularity among Gnostic heretics. Shoemaker never takes a firm stand on what he actually thought was happening during this time, but his speculations appear to imply that the “proto-orthodox” and Gnostics shared the same Marian doctrines and devotion to her. As cults to the martyrs increased, an increased appreciation for the greatest human being to ever live (Mary) evolved over time. The silence of proto-orthodox sources in the third century is either (1) the result of not having an encyclopedic amount of sources from the third century or (2) lay/local practices being out of step with established theological norms among the proto-orthodox intelligentsia.
Shoemaker appears to prefer the latter of the two possibilities. As evidence for the latter, he pulls from highly disparate sources: namely ancient liturgies, hymnals, and Gnostic Gospels. Interestingly enough, the ancient liturgies and hymnals are “proto-orthodox.” The implication is that the ancient version of “the man”/”the establishment” (i.e. the church fathers and the Bishops) were initially wary of Marian veneration (neither affirming nor denying it) while “the people” (i.e. the laity and local priests) greatly revered the Theotokos. Further, Shoemaker postulates (though not always explicitly) that the line between proto-orthodox and heterodox was often blurred among “the people.”
Hence, Marian veneration was a bottom-up innovation, albeit a very early one by Shoemaker’s own estimation. This sort of 21st century Marxist-lite version of historical interpretation is what philosophically undergirds the entirety of the research presented in the book.
To Shoemaker’s credit, he does present some evidence of his conjecture. Simply labeling his interpretation as “Marxist” is not sufficient to discount it. Nevertheless, what is lacking in his study is a serious look into Gnosticism and their doctrines. While we have compelling evidence that veneration of the saints was a Jewish practice predating the birth of Christ Himself, what we do not have is similar evidence of the Gnostics doing the same before “proto-orthodox Christians.” Irenaeus, for example, fails to mention the Gnostics conducting such a scandalous practice.
Ultimately, a more over-arching study of Judaism’s veneration of the saints, Hellenistic hero-cults, Roman imperial/Lares/Manes worship, and Christian saint-veneration at large would be necessary in order to give a firm, historical answer to the question as to how Marian veneration “developed.” Sadly, Shoemaker’s work is too narrow in its focus, which he may be forgiven for due to the difficulty of undergoing amore over-arching study. His work is the first step towards such an endeavor.
Ultimately, what is sorely needed in both academia and in ecumenical dialogue is a serious cross disciplinary study of the veneration of saints. Shoemaker’s work admittedly is not this broad, but it helps further the dialogue and is fairly comprehensive on the topic of the Theotokos–which in itself praiseworthy.
One final and off-topic note is worth making. Shoemaker’s book, in his discussion of Marian veneration, gives a succinct but comprehensive overview of early Christian art. Not surprisingly, much of it is Marian-focused or at least debatably so, as sometimes it is hard to discern precisely who is being presented in the art. What may surprise some Protestant readers is that amongst secular historians and archaeologists, it is taken for granted that Christian iconography was widespread and very ancient (second and third century.)
Most laymen who take to the internet to research and argue out this topic are often going over well-trodden ground (Saint Epiphanius’ iconoclasm, the art in the catacombs, etcetera) but are otherwise unaware that there is a ton more ancient Christian art discovered by archaeologists throughout the Mediterranean world which pretty much proves that the iconoclasts were outliers from the beginning. However, because much of the research on this topic was published after the 80s, it does not figure heavily on the internet, which over-emphasizes research that is available open-source instead of the peer-reviewed literature.
Conclusion. Despite some of its weaknesses, Shoemaker’s work on Marian veneration is relatively comprehensive and easy to follow. It should be required reading for all seminarians due to the recent nature of the research and laymen should not shy away from it, as it is accessible and not biased for or against the traditional sides of the debate.
Orthodox Christian Theology 
“What may surprise some Protestant readers is that amongst secular historians and archaeologists, it is taken for granted that Christian iconography was widespread and very ancient (second and third century.)”
College students who take art history classes on the early Christian period also know that..
My class was in renaissance art so I was blissfully unaware.
I’ll have to check it out sometime. I just finished another book that may be of interest to you: “Our Lady and the Church” by Hugo Rahner (brother of Karl). It does come from a very Catholic perspective, but it is one of the most comprehensive treatments of historical Mariology I have read. Especially of interest is how the early Christians talked about the Church–as a Virgin Mother–and how comparing how different fathers compared, contrasted, and sometimes even blurred the lines between Mary and the Church is really illuminating. I was left in stunned silence several times after reading many passages–I have been studying all this for over 8 years, but I was never aware of all of it.
Not sure if that made any sense, but just trust me–it was a great read.
Craig–
As a Protestant, I admit some difficulty reconciling in my mind how Marian devotion became so ubiquitous (RC, EO, OO, etc.) and why no traditional remnant of a downplayed role for Mary survived.
Of course, such things CAN happen. Kabbalah-inspired semi-Gnosticism pretty much pervades all of Judaism. And perhaps, downplayed positions on Mary did not survive in the short term, but were revived reformationally. (Examples of re-storation include Karaitism in Judaism and the Reorganized Latter Day Saints in Mormonism.)
Then again, perhaps downplayed versions may exist ethnically (or within particular orders) down to our very day. Certainly some groups are far more effusive than others!
For you, on the other hand, there is a gap in evidence which you seem to just gloss over…and mumble something about a paucity of texts.
All other known religions innovate. Nobody but nobody sticks to fundamentals alone (not even Evangelicalism). Why do you (blindly?) trust the early church NOT to have innovated when it comes to her Marian dogmas?
Matt 161i
Matt 1618
By the way, a “bottom up” development arising from the personal piety of local circles of laity…is the very definition of innovation and squares quite well with Protestant hypotheses.
Shoemaker doesn’t seem to be saying anything particularly new. According to him, Marianism precedes Ephesus and is reflected in its canons (rather than being a result of the conciliar pronouncements). That has always been my understanding of it heretofore. Ephesus effected the explosion not the inception of the practice.
Even accepting Peter as the absolute head of the early church says nothing about his successors.
Or are you cashing in all your chips on the “gates of Hades” line?
The latter. U r cashing yourchips on the great apostasy theory. Makes sense being that you just mentioned mormonism in your other reply.:(
Craig–
It’s more of a “great innovation theory.”
And, as innovation is normative in every religion (including Mormonism), it’s not much of a stretch.
You, on the other hand, are banking not only on an oddity but a unique one at that. God didn’t supernaturally stop Judaism from theological change, but for some unknown reason, Christianity (for you) is different. He had to mystically preserve the church free from error.
Of course, even Scripture claims otherwise:
“In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God’s approval.”
You’ve opted for some weird magicky thing instead of using your mind and heart to determine which of the many factions of Christendom has “God’s approval.”
You even have on this site a link to an article by “Shameless Orthodoxy” attesting to the Latin Fathers’ unanimity on Matthew 16:18 referring primarily to the “rock” being Peter’s faith…or (alternatively) the object of Peter’s faith, namely Christ himself.
If this is true, then what exactly can the “Gates of Hades” not prevail against?
Against the church (whichever that might be) founded on true faith. Founded on the only foundation available: Christ.
And what if that is NOT one of the continuous churches? Nothing in Scripture says that it has to be.
Matthew 16:18 included.
You already pointed it out. The whole Church accepted the supposed “innovation.” Yet, the whole Church did not buy into purgatory…nor the same view of divorce…nor the same stance on religious art…etc. The Jews in pre-NT venerated the saints. To argue that the veneration of the Theotokos is an innovation, when no one historically asserted this AND the WHOLE Church accepted it into the present, is essentially a conspiracy theory. It’s based on an absence of Biblical mention–not an absence of historical evidence nor logic (which would dictate that if every Christian everywhere in recorded history accepted it whenever the issue came up, that we have extremely firm grounds for the practice.)
I think you already know this. This is why you base your opposition on sola scriptura. The funny thing is I am sola scriptura too, I just disagree with your private interpretation of the Scripture. I think veneration of the Theotokos is Biblically “defendable” and the fathers would have agreed.
God bless,
Craig
Craig–
What in heaven’s name is this WHOLE church you speak of? It only includes those you personally deem worthy? It only includes time periods you’re comfortable with?
And it is not simple veneration of the Theotokos that we’re talking about, but hyperdulia: the excessive veneration of the humble maiden. Everyone honors her. But some–make that many–worship her in all but name only. It waddles and swims and quacks like a duck. There is absolutely no way to square it with Scripture. And you know it. (Or at least you should know it.)
I know the charge of worship is vehemently denied. But Buddhists likewise deny worshiping Buddha. And Muslims deny worshiping Muhammad (though they maintain that Buddhists worship Buddha…maybe you remember the Taliban blowing up the “idolatrous” Buddhas of Bamiyan).
Perhaps we should have a separate category for hyperdulia in religious studies. But even so, I don’t see how anyone can begin to justify it biblically for Mary.
Scripture is the only authority to which the wgole church subscribes. Nothing else necessarily brings us back to the teachings of Christ. Everything else is esoteric, subjective, unprovable.
You don’t like my interpretation of Scripture…but not on the basis of Scripture…but rather on the basis of post-apostolic presuppositions you’re bringing to the text. You cannot bring an argument for Marian devotion out of Scripture, not without being laughed out of court. Get serious. You simply don’t ascribe to Sola Scriptura…in any way, shape, or form.
Why do you keep touting “historical evidence” as if it were on your side? There is absolutely NO evidence of Marian devotion before 150 C.E.! And–as you yourself acknowledge–next to nothing in the third century. Plus, very little of what we do have is from orthodox sources.
It’s innovation. And your man Shoemaker says as much.
Let’s not get so complicated. In all of written history and archaeology, we have zero examples of someone who 1. identifies himself/herself as a Christian and 2. explicitly opposes venerating the saints. We have examples of people that think that exaggerated practices are bad (St Epiphanius) and otherwise did not hold to associated doctrines (Helvidius thought Mary had other children.) We have two outliers, Aerius of Sebaste and Vigilantius, who are the only recorded evidence of opposition to veneration and prayers to the dead–and both were monastics in communion with those who did (which, in my honest opinion, shows these were people who later changed their minds and started teaching new doctrines–the ones Protestants agree with today.)
THis is why Indians in Kerala, Eritreans, Irish, and the whole Meditteranean world had no disagreements about the doctrines you oppose so much–because Aerius and Vigilantius did not represent a stream in Christian thought. Rather, they were two guys who accepted Orthodoxy at some point, went nuts, and rejected it.
Luther accepted the same doctrines at some point to. If Protestantism is the truth, why did it disappear entirely? Not just a little. Completely. By default, you must adopt the Mormon apologetic and that is not something I’d be comfortable doing if I were you.
Craig–
In this day and age, surely you can understand how new ideas might take hold of a society quickly, spreading like a contagion. Look at where the acceptance of the same-sex agenda was a scant ten years ago. Now, a decade later, those who hold to millennia-old ethics are social pariahs…and there is not a peep of complaint in all of Hollywood or in all of the mainstream media. (And very little from the rest of us, quite frankly.) The movers and shakers in the culture are basically of one accord.
It is not take a flight of fancy to believe that the early church establishment, the only voices likely to come down all the way to us, might turn on a dime…without dissenting voices…other than a curmudgeon or two like Vigilantius. This is EXACTLY what we should expect!
Not only that, but what we are talking about is an accepted practice (the honoring of martyrs) taken to excess. It need not have sprung from “out of the blue.” Just pressed ahead a little farther by a charismatic leader or two.
And I don’t get the whole “no complaints” business. So, so much of what was written was not preserved. And the rank-and-file were illiterate. Pretty easy clean-up job for the Catholic hierarchy’s PR machine!
I mean, do we have individual Christians vocally complaining when the anti-Judaism of the NT became full-fledged antisemitism in certain Christian quarters? Do we have particularly visible protests when slavery kicked back into gear in the fourteenth century? How about the Inquisition? The Crusades? There may have been a few outliers…but mostly we hear…crickets. Lots and lots and lots of crickets!
I don’t know if a Protestant-like take on Mary died out or not. I do know that there is a spectrum upon which Marian devotion falls. It is far stronger in certain areas than others. Apparitions tend to happen among certain ethnicities and not others. The Waldensians, I believe, were not big in Mary.
But, rudely enough, I don’t give a fig if you think I follow a Mormon pattern. (They’re nutcases, but not because they think everyone else has gotten it wrong. They’re nutcases because of how clearly wrong THEY themselves are, irrespective of anyone else!) I believe one could study the beginnings of Islam and resurrect a form of the religion far more consistent with the teachings of Muhammad. It could start today…and still be the most traditional version of the faith on the planet.
Nevertheless your central premise is Mormon therein lies the problem
….not big ON Mary…
I changed it back several times, and autocorrect (auto-incorrect?) still got the better of me!!
Continuity that cannot be tied to original content is senseless.
In point of fact, in certain ways, I actually find you to be closer than I to a Mormon modus operandi.
There is absolutely no early evidence for water being substituted for wine in the Eucharist, no evidence of baptisms for the dead taking place (aside from Paul’s cryptic remark), and no evidence for the acceptance of Scriptures (a la the Book of Mormon) having no ties to Apostolic composition.
Likewise, you have absolutely no evidence before 150 C.E. for the veneration of Mary and very little prior to the middle of the fourth century. Very Mormon of you!!
Meanwhile, Sola Fide shows up in 1 Clement and the Epistle to Diognetus before the middle of the second century.
As Shoemaker lays out the facts, the “Protevangelium of James” is the earliest evidence we have of significant Marian piety. Yet that document is clearly erroneous and contradicts the Bible; for example, it states that Mary gave birth in a cave along the road en route to Bethlehem rather than in a stable at Bethlehem. The Protevangelium would also have us believe that Joseph and Mary lived together, with Joseph serving as Mary’s guardian, during the betrothal period and prior to the discovery of Mary’s pregnancy; who can believe that God-fearing Jews would have done such a scandalous thing (living together before marriage) back then? Is it any wonder that the Western church declared the document to be heretical?
Shoemaker advances the Protevangelium as evidence that Marian piety may already have been commonly practiced by that time. But what if such piety was advanced and effected by this document (which Shoemaker admits was “highly influential” in the early church)?
And then we have the “Book of Mary’s Repose,” which clearly shows evidence of Gnosticism’s influence. This document turns ‘Mary the Virgin Christ-Bearer’ into ‘Mary the Dispenser of Cosmic Mysteries Necessary for Salvation.’ The “Pistis Sophia” and the “Gospel of Bartholomew” portray Mary as one who explains the “sacred mysteries” to the hapless, befuddled-seeming disciples; who can believe that men in a male-dominated society, men who walked and talked with Jesus, would allow a woman to exhibit such dominant behavior and superiority of knowledge?
When the leading documentary evidence of Marianism from the earliest times is obviously tainted, how can we trust those writings to point us in the correct direction?
My take on Shoemaker is that he is entirely too accepting of the notion of Marian devotion, not the opposite (as Craig appears to posit).
Michael, great reply. It’s been a while since I have read the protoevangelicum, so pardon me getting details off, but allow me to interact with your reply.
“Yet that document is clearly erroneous and contradicts the Bible…”
At least *apparently* so. Some of the things the document posits would appear, at first glance, a stretch. For example, John the Baptist’s parents play a pivotal role before Mary was even born, with Zechariah serving as high priest. We have a list of the high priests from before Christ’s birth–Zechariah is not there–https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_High_Priests_of_Israel#After_the_Babylonian_Exile)
The point is, do we try to reconcile tradition with secular history just as we do the same with the Scriptures, or do we hold them to two different standards?
Personally, because I do not consider “saints lives’ literal history on all points, I do not feel wed to defend every non-crucial detail as literal fact. To be honest, and maybe this makes me a “liberal,” I feel the same about the Scriptures to some degree. I don’t think they are “false,” though I do think an overly literal approach may in fact be the wrong way of reading them (it would be like reading Song of Solomon and thinking its just about a man and a woman.)
So, if we read the protoevangelicum as teaching a Bibically necessary principle, that being 1. the virginity of christ, 2. the necessity of the Theotokos being the fulfillment of the ark of the covenant (which is demanded by the obvious parallels between the Gospels and the OT in this regard), and 3. the Christological principle that none of us experience Christ and become *more* defiled as a result–then high marian dogmas become bibically necessary.
For example, St Paul in 1 Cor 7 explicitly states that virginity is *better* than marraige (which is still “good.”) So, how can the Theotokos give birth to Christ and *lose her virginity*? This would mean Christ defiled his own mother. Even a mediocre Biblical exegete with no ax to grind with anyone would arrive at the central thesis of the protoevangelicum: Mary’s virginity before, during, and after birth.
Allow me to interact with some of your other points:
“for example, it states that Mary gave birth in a cave along the road en route to Bethlehem rather than in a stable at Bethlehem.”
Orthodox iconography often shows the case acting as a stable. The fact we know that Shepards and stuff found Jesus and his family, a stable located in downtown Bethlehem (which would be strange to stable your animals, besides maybe horses, in the middle of a small city), appears to be eisegesis. The tradition, in fact, works better with the Biblical information.
“The Protevangelium would also have us believe that Joseph and Mary lived together, with Joseph serving as Mary’s guardian, during the betrothal period and prior to the discovery of Mary’s pregnancy; who can believe that God-fearing Jews would have done such a scandalous thing (living together before marriage) back then?”
I agree. The protoevangelicum even explicitly says Joseph was scandalized. We know from secular history that the temple had virgins sewing the curtains and stuff, so marrying them off was probably some sort of common occurrence. Being that Mary would have certainly been identified as special, some sort of special arrangement would have not been out of line.
“Is it any wonder that the Western church declared the document to be heretical?”
Orthodox believe the western church was never sufficiently jewish enough to understand the document, as most of their forefathers were pagans. The document is quite Jewish in fact and requires knowledge of a lot of fine details of Judaism.
“Shoemaker advances the Protevangelium as evidence that Marian piety may already have been commonly practiced by that time. But what if such piety was advanced and effected by this document (which Shoemaker admits was “highly influential” in the early church)?”
Usually written documents come after oral traditions and such, not the other way around. The fact we have other 2nd century documents like the ascension of isaiah and gospel of bartholomew relaying the same doctrines appears to show that the egg came before the chicken.
“And then we have the “Book of Mary’s Repose,” which clearly shows evidence of Gnosticism’s influence. This document turns ‘Mary the Virgin Christ-Bearer’ into ‘Mary the Dispenser of Cosmic Mysteries Necessary for Salvation.’ The “Pistis Sophia” and the “Gospel of Bartholomew” portray Mary as one who explains the “sacred mysteries” to the hapless, befuddled-seeming disciples; who can believe that men in a male-dominated society, men who walked and talked with Jesus, would allow a woman to exhibit such dominant behavior and superiority of knowledge?”
They are certainly heretical documents, I don’t disagree. Keep in mind, however, Gnostics were syncretists and stole a lot from orthodox Christianity. I argue in my article that gnostic origins is unlikely, because the intercession of the saints is hard to square with their cosmology. Irenaeus does not even once touch on the issue, though he would have certainly been aware of their teaching on it–so unspectacular he would have viewed it I suppose.
“When the leading documentary evidence of Marianism from the earliest times is obviously tainted, how can we trust those writings to point us in the correct direction?”
Because we have orthodox writings and archaeological evidence from the same time period.
God bless!
Craig