Saint Epiphanius on the Assumption of Mary

Although the vast majority of traditions concerning the dormition of the Virgin Mary began to emerge in the late fifth and early sixth centuries, many Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christians put forward St. Epiphanius of Salamis as a fourth century advocate of her bodily assumption into heaven. Epiphanius’ relevant comments are concentrated within two chapters of his Panarion, and are directed toward the errors of two groups respectively; the Antidicomarians and the Collyridians. For Epiphanius, “the harm done by both of these sects is equal, since one belittles the holy Virgin [by denying her perpetual virginity] while the other, in its turn, glorifies her to excess [to the point of offering her worship]” (Collyridians 1.5). 

Concerning the first, Epiphanius writes that “certain Antidicomarians, inspired by some envy or error and intending to sully men’s minds, have dared to say that St. Mary had relations with a man after Christ’s birth, I mean with Joseph himself” (Antidicomarians 1.3). He goes on to argue from Mary’s title ‘Virgin,’ and the received tradition of her betrothal to St. Joseph, a man of advanced age with children from a previous marriage. He then turns to consider Mary’s life after the death of Christ, in the care of St. John the Apostle: “But the Gospel says, ‘And from that day he took her unto his own home.’ But if she had a husband, a home, children, she would return to her own home and not to someone else’s” (Antidicomarians 10.13). Then follows the first lengthy section of material relevant to the question of Mary’s assumption:

If any think [I] am mistaken, moreover, let them search through the scriptures and neither find Mary’s death, nor whether or not she died, nor whether or not she was buried—even though John surely traveled throughout Asia. And yet, nowhere does he say that he took the holy Virgin with him. Scripture simply kept silence because of the overwhelming wonder, not to throw men’s minds into consternation. For I dare not say—though I have my suspicions, I keep silent. Perhaps, just as her death is not to be found, so I may have found some traces of the holy and blessed Virgin. In one passage Simeon says of her, “And a sword shall pierce through thine own soul also, that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.” And elsewhere the Revelation of John says, “And the dragon hastened after the woman who had born the man child, and she was given the wings of an eagle and was taken to the wilderness, that the dragon might not seize her.” Perhaps this can be applied to her; I cannot decide for certain, and am not saying that she remained immortal. But neither am I affirming that she died. For scripture went beyond man’s understanding and left it in suspense with regard to the precious and choice vessel, so that no one would suspect carnal behavior of her. Whether she died, I don’t know; and [even] if she was buried, she never had carnal relations, perish the thought! (Antidicomarians 11:2-5)

For Epiphanius, the silence concerning Mary’s dormition is in service to the truth of her perpetual virginity. The Scripture left this matter in suspense in order that no one would suspect carnal behavior of her. Here the argument seems to be that the mere possibility of a supernatural end left open by the silence of Scripture should be enough to banish the thought of Mary having “carnal relations.” And just as the Scriptures do not record anything of the rest of her life, her death, or indeed whether she did in fact die and was buried, neither should we presume to make claims about her remaining years. On this point Epiphanius is in agreement with Calvin, who said “the best rule of sobriety is, not only in learning to follow wherever God leads, but also when he makes an end of teaching, to cease also from wishing to be wise” (Institutes, 21.3). 

Why then consider the possibility that Mary “remained immortal?” Despite the lack of any explicit record in the Scriptures, Epiphanius explores two passages that may have implications for her fate. The first is Simeon’s prophecy in Luke 2:35 that a sword would pierce Mary’s soul. As will become clear, Epiphanius sees this text as a possible reference to death via martyrdom. The second is Revelation 12:14 where the woman is given eagle’s wings and brought into the wilderness to escape the dragon. It is this passage that supplies the possibility Mary remained immortal; though Epiphanius is quick to note that he cannot decide for certain whether the passage can be applied to her. Despite the possible import of these texts, Epiphanius will still neither affirm that Mary died, nor that she remained immortal. 

Some are tempted to understand Epiphanius’ consideration of Mary’s immortality as evidence of an early tradition. What is most striking, however, is that despite having just given lengthy attention to traditions concerning St. Joseph, on this point his only appeal is to Scripture. Epiphanius seems to think that immortality would better ward off attacks on Mary’s perpetual virginity, but after indicating that he has searched out her fate, the only “traces” he can offer are two texts of undetermined relevance. Despite spending much of his religious life in Judea, and his later bishopric in conversation across the Christian East, Epiphanius does not appear familiar with any extant traditions concerning Mary’s dormition or assumption. He concludes his thoughts on her fate:

The holy virgin may have died and been buried—her falling asleep was with honor, her death in purity, her crown in virginity. Or she may have been put to death—as the scripture says, “And a sword shall pierce through her soul” —her fame is among the martyrs and her holy body, by which light rose on the world, [rests] amid blessings. Or she may have remained alive, for God is not incapable of doing whatever he wills. No one knows her end. (Antidicomarians 23:8-9)

Perhaps the most frequently cited of Epiphanius’ comments on Mary is from the proceeding chapter of the Panarion, against the Collyridians. Whereas the Antidicomarians had denied the perpetual virginity, the Collyridians were guilty of an equal opposite error, worshiping Mary by a yearly offering of bread. Epiphanius begins his address to the Collyridians, apparently a sect of women, by declaring that “never at any time has a woman offered sacrifice to God” (Collyridians 2:3). He then supplies a long list of male biblical figures who were authorized to offer sacrifice, concluding with the levitical order. Turning to the New Testament, Epiphanius grants that “were [it] ordained by God that women should offer sacrifice…Mary herself, if anyone, should have functioned as a priest…” (Collyridians 3:1). He admits that Mary could well have baptized Christ rather than John, but even this was not entrusted to her. This is the setting for what may be his most contentious claim:

The vessel is choice but a woman, and by nature no different [from others]. Like the bodies of the saints, however, she has been held in honor for her character and understanding. And if I should say anything more in her praise, [she is] like Elijah, who was virgin from his mother’s womb, always remained so, and was taken up and has not seen death. She is like John who leaned on the Lord’s breast, “the disciple whom Jesus loved”...But Elijah is not to be worshiped, even though he is alive. And John is not to be worshiped, even though by his own prayer— or rather, by receiving the grace from God—he made an awesome thing of his falling asleep.” (Collyridians 5.1) 

Many cite the comparison of Mary with Elijah as evidence for Epiphanius’ belief in the bodily assumption. Rarely is the quote offered in its greater context, including her comparison to the Apostle John¹. The frequent isolation of this appeal to Elijah can hardly be unintentional. Taken alone, it does appear to be a passing reference to her assumption. Taken together, however, this passage clearly recalls Epiphanius’ earlier discussion of whether Mary died or remained immortal. His appeal to biblical figures is consistent throughout the response to the Collyridians, and should be no surprise here. His argument seems to be that whichever of the fates speculated in Antidicomarians befell Mary (and no matter how much these absolve her from suspicion of impurity) she is still unfit for worship, as illustrated by the lives of the saints who met similar ends.  

The clear import of Elijah’s example isn’t that he was “taken up,” but rather that he remained alive. It is not at all clear that Mary’s remaining immortal would entail some form of assumption into heaven for Epiphanius. It’s worth noting that the section of Revelation 12 he cites as potentially implying Mary’s immortality is the woman’s flight into the wilderness, whereas advocates of her assumption typically highlight the presence of the woman in heaven (v. 1), and her apparent association with the ark (11:19). These verses are well within reach for Epiphanius, and would arguably provide far greater support were he interested in proposing her assumption. 

What can we learn from St. Epiphanius? In the first place, it is clear that no extant Apostolic tradition regarding Mary’s assumption exists in the fourth century. Epiphanius himself does not know her end. Any attempt to read his use of Elijah as an assumption claim must ignore his twin use of John, and clear commitment to keep silent on the matter. That said, Epiphanius engages in the kind of speculation that would make any Protestant blush. Nearly all of it is driven by his need to respond to critics of established Marian theology. It should be plain how an assumption narrative could quickly gain traction under these conditions. Passages like Revelation 12 seem to lend themselves to this type of conjecture. But although the testimony of St. Epiphanius makes clear how traditions concerning Mary’s dormition might develop, an honest assessment of the evidence reinforces a sixth century date for the emergence of any mature belief in her assumption. 

1. Some argue for the assumption of John as well. In the fourth century, however, the dominant Johannine dormition narrative seems to be that the Beloved Disciple was buried alive at Ephesus, where he remains sleeping until the return of Christ. This is the tradition asserted by Epiphanius in his Index Discipulorum. St. Augustine testifies to the presence of a belief that John’s breath could be detected in the movement of the ground above his grave, which had become a shrine by that time (Tractates on the Gospel of John, Tractate 124).