The Assumption Of Mary Isn't Just Absent In The Earliest Sources

People often underestimate the evidence against an assumption of Mary and the evidence against the idea that her assumption is an apostolic tradition always held by the church. While it's true that the concept of an assumption of Mary is absent in the earliest generations of church history, the evidence against the concept goes far beyond that. See my posts here and here about how often the Biblical and extrabiblical sources discuss a wide range of topics relevant to an assumption of Mary, mentioning many individuals other than Mary in the process, without saying anything about an assumption that Mary experienced. Here's a post that discusses other contexts, like ancient Christian artwork, in which an assumption of Mary or other relevant events (e.g., her being raised from the dead) could have been included, but weren't. Again, keep in mind that many people other than Mary are included in such contexts, even though Mary isn't. There's also the fact that some patristic and medieval sources either expressed agnosticism about whether Mary was assumed (see here and here) or denied that she was assumed (see here and here). And here's a post about a medieval Pope who referred to belief in Mary's assumption as optional. On the problems with appealing to doctrinal development in support of an assumption of Mary, see here.

You can find many other posts with relevant material in our archives. See the list of posts under the Assumption of Mary label here, for example.

Problems With Appealing To Doctrinal Development In Support Of The Assumption Of Mary

One approach advocates of her assumption could take is to argue that the earliest Christians weren't aware of Mary's assumption, but that an understanding of it developed over time. It wasn't a new revelation, but rather is an implication of one or more aspects of the apostolic faith, an implication that wasn't recognized until sometime after the apostles.

There are some problems with that sort of approach, some of which I've discussed before. I want to repeat some points I've brought up in other discussions and add some that I don't think I've mentioned in the past.

Did a Protestant pastor's daughter have a supernatural dream confirming the assumption of Mary?

A Protestant pastor, named Daniel, recently posted a video about a potentially supernatural experience he had with his daughter related to Mary's assumption. He was researching the assumption of Mary, asked God to reveal to him whether the assumption is historical, and was told by his daughter afterward that she'd had a dream in which she saw Mary going up to heaven.

The incident seems to have a lot of potential to be supernatural on its face. Before I get to possible explanations of the episode if it is supernatural, I want to address some reasons to be hesitant about concluding that there is anything supernatural that needs to be explained.

Late Medieval And Reformation Sources On The Perpetual Virginity Of Mary

TurretinFan and Dan Chapa recently produced a video discussing the diversity of views of the perpetual virginity of Mary held by sources of the late medieval and Reformation eras. It draws on some of the material in my recent posts here, here, and here.

The Diversity Of Views Of The Perpetual Virginity Of Mary In The Late Medieval And Reformation Eras (Part 3)

One of the issues that sometimes comes up in discussions of Mary's perpetual virginity is the necessity of accepting the doctrine. Is acceptance of it a requirement for salvation? If somebody believes in the perpetual virginity of Mary, to what degree does he think opponents of the doctrine have erred? As my last post mentioned, a person could be agnostic about whether Mary was a perpetual virgin. And people who support the doctrine or oppose it can do so to a wide variety of degrees. Issues like these often get overlooked or underestimated, not just when considering the timeframes I'm focused on in these posts, but also more broadly.

The Diversity Of Views Of The Perpetual Virginity Of Mary In The Late Medieval And Reformation Eras (Part 2)

People have taken a lot of different positions on the perpetual virginity of Mary. A wide variety of views is found in the historical record during the timeframes I'm addressing. You could believe that Mary didn't have sexual intercourse, but reject her virginity in partu. You could believe in her perpetual virginity, yet not think that rejecting it makes somebody a non-Christian. You could affirm her perpetual virginity or oppose it to different degrees. You could be agnostic on the subject. And so on.

This post will discuss some examples of individuals who opposed the perpetual virginity of Mary. The next post will address sources who took other positions that are significant in one way or another.

The Diversity Of Views Of The Perpetual Virginity Of Mary In The Late Medieval And Reformation Eras (Part 1)

It's common for Roman Catholics and other critics of Protestantism to bring up support among the earliest Protestants for various Marian beliefs that are often rejected by Protestants today, like the perpetual virginity of Mary. Individuals like Martin Luther and Ulrich Zwingli will be cited in support of her perpetual virginity and other such beliefs about her. While it's true that the earliest Protestants were closer to groups like Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy on Marian issues than modern Protestants are, even the earliest Protestants substantially disagreed with those groups on some Marian issues. See the examples discussed here. And the early Protestants who accepted Mary's perpetual virginity sometimes disagreed with Catholics and other modern advocates of the perpetual virginity of Mary on some issues related to the doctrine, like whether she took a vow of virginity. In the coming days, I'm going to be discussing some late medieval and Reformation sources who were more distant from a traditional Catholic view on the perpetual virginity of Mary. What I want to do in this post is discuss some background issues that I think are helpful in framing the discussion.

Epiphanius' Ignorance Of An Assumption Of Mary

Cameron Bertuzzi recently hosted a three-hour video about the Assumption of Mary, with Ethan Muse, Suan Sonna, and William Albrecht as guests. And Suan posted a thirteen-minute clip from the program on his own YouTube channel, a clip criticizing Gavin Ortlund's work on the Assumption. My focus here will be on some material in the church father Epiphanius, which received a lot of attention in the original video and is the main topic of the clip Suan highlighted. I'll briefly comment on some other topics as well, but I'll mostly be discussing Epiphanius.

Habakkuk's Assumption Mentioned While Mary's Isn't

I've often discussed how much attention figures like Enoch, Elijah, Jesus, and Paul get in scripture and in the early extrabiblical sources because of being bodily assumed to heaven or carried up in a supernatural manner in some other context. See here, for example, among many other relevant posts in our archives.

One of the most striking examples I've cited is the account of Habakkuk being supernaturally transported from Israel to Babylon in an Apocryphal addition to the book of Daniel, Daniel 14:32-38. In an earlier post, I noted how significant it is that Cyril of Jerusalem, for example, wrote about the assumptions or assumption-like experiences of so many figures, even an example as insignificant as the passage about Habakkuk in an Apocryphal document, yet said nothing of an assumption of Mary.

There's another example of this kind of thing in Chromatius of Aquileia. As far as I know, he never advocated the assumption of Mary anywhere in his writings. Yet, he does discuss the transporting of Habakkuk to Babylon (Thomas Scheck, trans., Chromatius Of Aquileia: Sermons And Tractates On Matthew [Mahwah, New Jersey: The Newman Press, 2018], approximate Kindle location 4741). The context Chromatius is addressing is God's provision of food for his people, such as God's provision for Daniel through Habakkuk. I wouldn't expect Mary to be mentioned in that context, even if Chromatius believed in her assumption. My point isn't that Mary should have been mentioned by Chromatius in that passage if he believed in her assumption. Rather, my point is that even something as insignificant as the material on Habakkuk in the Apocrypha gets mentioned sometimes, whereas the assumption of Mary keeps going conspicuously unmentioned, even when people are addressing issues that are highly relevant (assumptions, resurrections, people who are currently in heaven in an embodied state, etc.).

How much were the Zeitoun Marian apparitions associated with Coptic Christianity?

The subject is important not only because of the use of Zeitoun by Roman Catholics, but also because of how positively other non-Copts view the apparitions. Given the closeness of Coptic Christianity and the Zeitoun apparitions, how do non-Copts reconcile an acceptance of the apparitions as Marian with their rejection of Coptic Christianity?

Problems With Roman Catholic Apparitions Of Mary

Fatima has been getting an unusual amount of attention lately, largely because of a recent debate on the subject between Ethan Muse and Sean Luke. The Zeitoun apparitions got a lot of attention last year. I don't know enough about Fatima to address it as much as I have Zeitoun. But I want to discuss some of the factors involved in evaluating Marian apparitions in general.

I Agree With The Earliest Christians About The Perpetual Virginity Of Mary

When it comes to the perpetual virginity of Mary, do you agree with the Catholic view or with the view of Protestant reformers Martin Luther, Ulrich Zwingli, and John Wesley?

— Michael Knowles (@michaeljknowles) March 28, 2026

I agree with Matthew, Mark, Hegesippus, Irenaeus, and other early Christians who rejected the perpetual virginity of Mary. Much of the Biblical evidence against her perpetual virginity rarely gets discussed, such as what I address here and here. There were many Christians in early church history who didn't believe that Mary was a perpetual virgin, far more than just Tertullian and Helvidius. You can access an archive of our posts on the perpetual virginity of Mary here. Keep clicking Older Posts in the lower right to see more.

An Interview With Stephen Carlson On Christmas Issues

I recently saw a Facebook post from Chris Powell that linked an interview with Stephen Carlson about some Christmas issues. Carlson makes a lot of good points about the meaning and historicity of the infancy narratives, especially Luke 2. The interview is about an hour long and is well worth listening to. You should also read his article on Luke 2, which is one of the best resources available on Luke's census account and some other issues.

I disagree with some of what he says during the interview. I would date Luke's gospel earlier, for reasons I've explained here, among other places.

Why are the women in Matthew's genealogy included?

There are ongoing disagreements about why Matthew refers to Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and Bathsheba in Matthew 1:3-6. It's sometimes suggested that they're included because of the theme of God's acceptance of Gentiles. That theme is prominent in early Christianity, including in the gospel of Matthew, as the magi in chapter 2 illustrate. But Bathsheba apparently was Jewish. She lived in Isarael. In 2 Samuel 11:3, her father is referred to as Eliam, with no further qualifier, whereas the same verse qualifies Uriah as "the Hittite". See, also, 2 Samuel 23:34. If Ahithophel was the grandfather of Bathsheba, which would be further evidence of her Jewishness, that would help explain why Ahithophel betrayed David (because of what David did to Bathsheba). Matthew 1:16 includes Mary, who was Jewish, in a way similar to how the other women are included earlier. Furthermore, when Bathsheba is referred to in verse 6, she's identified as the wife of Uriah, not "the wife of a Hittite", "the wife of Uriah the Hittite", or some other such thing. And she's referred to as Uriah's wife in a context about giving birth to Solomon after marrying David. She wasn't Uriah's wife at the time, yet Matthew chose to mention that she had been Uriah's wife. The focus seems to be on the adulterous origins of her relationship with David, not any connection to Gentiles. Matthew probably didn't think Ruth was guilty of sexual sin, and he didn't think Mary was, so he didn't think the women had sexual sin in common. Even the women who were sexually immoral were so in significantly different ways. For example, Rahab's background as a prostitute is substantially different than conceiving the child mentioned in the genealogy by means of sexual immorality. It also seems unlikely that the women were all thought to have had a low social status independent of issues like sexual immorality (being born into a disreputable family, being of low economic status, etc.). As explained above, Matthew highlight's Bathsheba's involvement in adultery, which is distinct from the sort of social status issues I just referred to. What's the common thread with these women, then?

How Often The Church Fathers "Demeaned" Mary

Boniface Ramsey, in his translation of the sermons of Maximus of Turin, refers to passages in which Maximus "demeans" Mary (The Sermons Of St. Maximus Of Turin [Mahwah, New Jersey: Newman Press, 1989], n. 1 on p. 365). Given Roman Catholicism's history of claiming that Mary is God's greatest creation, that she was sinless throughout her life, that she cooperated with Jesus' work in the world at every moment of her life, and so on, it doesn't take much to say something that demeans Mary from a Catholic perspective. For example:

How Later Church Fathers Disagree With Earlier Ones

Sometimes a disagreement is more obvious, such as the comments of a later church father who explicitly refers to his disagreement with the premillennialism of Papias or Irenaeus. Other times, the disagreement is more subtle.

For example, I've written before about how Irenaeus compares Mary's virginity to the virginity of soil that was "as yet" virgin, but would later lose its virginity. Contrast his comments with those of Maximus of Turin, who wrote more than two centuries later, after the perpetual virginity of Mary had become more popular. I'll quote Irenaeus, then quote Maximus with emphasis added to highlight a difference:

"And as the protoplast himself Adam, had his substance from untilled and as yet virgin soil ('for God had not yet sent rain, and man had not tilled the ground'), and was formed by the hand of God, that is, by the Word of God, for 'all things were made by Him,' and the Lord took dust from the earth and formed man; so did He who is the Word, recapitulating Adam in Himself, rightly receive a birth, enabling Him to gather up Adam [into Himself], from Mary, who was as yet a virgin." (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3:21:10)

"For Adam was born of the virgin earth and Christ was begotten of the virgin Mary; the maternal soil of the one had not yet been broken by hoes, while the hidden place of the other's maternity was never violated by desire." (Maximus of Turin, Sermon 50A:2, Boniface Ramsey, trans., The Sermons Of St. Maximus Of Turin [Mahwah, New Jersey: Newman Press, 1989], 122)

Where Irenaeus sees a parallel, Maximus goes out of his way to describe a contrast. (And you can read my post on Irenaeus linked above for further evidence that he didn't think Mary was a perpetual virgin. For more about the larger historical context surrounding Irenaeus, in which we see other opponents of the perpetual virginity of Mary in many places for hundreds of years, see here, here, and here, for example.)

Chromatius On Opponents Of Mary's Perpetual Virginity

Chromatius of Aquileia, who lived in the fourth and fifth centuries, wrote:

"But concerning what the evangelist said, 'And he did not know her till she brought forth a son' [Matt 1:25], several foolish people are accustomed to stir up a question, thinking that after the Lord's birth saint Mary was united with Joseph." (Thomas Scheck, trans., Chromatius Of Aquileia: Sermons And Tractates On Matthew [Mahwah, New Jersey: The Newman Press, 2018], approximate Kindle location 3051)

Though Chromatius could be discussing opponents of Mary's perpetual virginity in general, he seems to be limiting his comments to the interpretation of Matthew 1:25 instead. Either way, his use of the term "several" is significant. There surely were some people who held the view in question with whom Chromatius wasn't familiar. So, the total number has to be higher than the several Chromatius refers to. And if he's only commenting on a particular interpretation of Matthew 1:25, then the total number who rejected the perpetual virginity of Mary, whether on the basis of Matthew 1:25 or on other grounds, must have been higher still. Advocates of the perpetual virginity of Mary often say or suggest that only one or two individuals or some other extremely small number denied her perpetual virginity before the Reformation (only Helvidius, only Tertullian and Helvidius, etc.). Chromatius' comment suggests the number was higher.

And we have far more than Chromatius' comment to go by. See here and here, for example for discussions of the evidence that many individuals rejected Mary's perpetual virginity for hundreds of years before the Reformation, beginning in the first century and continuing into the medieval era. Rejection of her perpetual virginity seems to have been the more popular view during the earliest generations of church history.

"Firstborn" In Luke 2:7 And The Alleged Perpetual Virginity Of Mary

From Gregory Lanier's new commentary on Luke:

"Also, because prōtotokos here [in Luke 2:7] is modified by 'her,' it registers at the human level and does not convey the transcendence of Rom 8: 29; Col 1: 15; and Heb 1: 6." (Christian Standard Commentary: Luke [B&H Publishing Group, 2025], approximate Kindle location 4693)

Luke uses "only begotten" elsewhere (7:12, 9:38). He could have used it in 2:7, which would have implied the prerogatives, honors, and such of the "firstborn" terminology without casting doubt on Mary's perpetual virginity. In a culture in which women normally have multiple children, like ancient Israel, a woman whose child is called "firstborn" is normally expected to go on to have others or thought to have had others already, and Luke's gospel refers to others if the gospel is interpreted in its most natural sense (8:19). To refer to a woman's child as "firstborn" when she may not have any other children, but is expected to have more, is different than referring to the child as "firstborn" when writing after you know there were no other children. You could do the latter, but it would be less natural. Even if a term takes on additional uses over time, you should ask what the best explanation is of how the term originated. That has implications for later usage. "Firstborn" makes the most sense as a term originating in a context involving multiple children. That likely was the original meaning and the usual meaning afterward, even though exceptions developed under some circumstances. The issue here is how we best explain the terminology, not how it might be interpreted.

What's the significance of something like baptismal regeneration or the perpetual virginity of Mary?

I've been posting a lot on both subjects lately, but people often dismiss such issues as insignificant. A recent post I wrote about baptismal regeneration focused on one of the reasons why that issue is important. And I linked another post that discusses thirteen problems with baptismal regeneration, which provides other reasons for considering the subject significant.

Another reason for thinking more highly of these issues is how they're connected to other topics. Whatever significance the perpetual virginity of Mary has when considered in isolation, it takes on more importance when you consider how it has implications for claims about church infallibility, papal authority, the nature of extrabiblical tradition, and so on. Similarly, something like whether Mary was assumed to heaven doesn't have a lot of significance in isolation, but it becomes more significant when it's attached to other things, like papal infallibility and the infallibility of one institution or another.

There's also the issue of Biblical precedent. Many of the arguments used to underestimate the significance of baptismal regeneration could also have been used to underestimate the significance of adding circumcision as a means of justification, for example. Yet, the apostles treated the adding of circumcision as a major issue. (They also applied that reasoning more broadly, since they refer at times to the broader subject of adding "works", "conditions", etc. They didn't think circumcision was the only thing that couldn't be added.) As I've argued elsewhere, Peter probably was criticizing the concept of baptismal regeneration in 1 Peter 3, which is why he framed things so similarly to how Josephus did when addressing that sort of misconception of baptism in the context of John the Baptist.

And an issue doesn't need to have maximal significance in order to have some. I do a lot of work on Christmas issues. There's some value to knowing whether Jesus had siblings, the nature of his relationships with those siblings, and so forth. Though those aren't foundational issues or highly significant in some other way, they do have some significance. It's the type of information people often look into when studying the background of any historical figure, writing biographies, etc. It's information that tells you something about how the person's character was shaped, what experiences he had in life, how reliable certain people are (like siblings) as witnesses of his life, and so on.

I'm not trying to be exhaustive. These are just some examples of reasons why these issues are important.

Does the unbelief of Jesus' brothers support Mary's perpetual virginity?

I recently heard somebody make that claim. If Jesus' brothers grew up in the same house as Jesus, which would have included having a large amount of information about or even witnessing miracles associated with him, for example, why weren't they believers?

That's just a variation of an objection that's been raised for a long time in other contexts. See my response to Raymond Brown's formulation of it here and here and my response to Bart Ehrman's version of it here, for instance. There's no reason to think there were as many or more miracles occurring in association with Jesus in his home prior to his public ministry than during that ministry. But his brothers were unbelievers during that latter timeframe. The typical non-Christian argument pertaining to Jesus' miracles at the time wasn't that there weren't any miracles, but rather that they didn't come from God. It wasn't an absence of miracles that was motivating the unbelief.

And though children of Joseph from a previous marriage and cousins would be further removed from Jesus than children born from Mary, we'd still expect children from a previous marriage and cousins to have had a lot of contact with Joseph, Mary, and Jesus. Look at how often they're in close proximity to Jesus and Mary in the gospels and elsewhere. That probably occurred prior to Jesus' public ministry as well. Just as there isn't much difficulty in reconciling the unbelief of Jesus' brothers with their being step-brothers or cousins, there isn't much difficulty in reconciling their unbelief with their being brothers in the most common sense of that term.

Distancing the brothers from Jesus makes their unbelief less difficult to explain in some ways, but not in every context. If the brothers were children from a previous marriage, then they lived through the events of the infancy narratives, as Joseph and Mary did. By contrast, children later born from Mary didn't. Children from a previous marriage also would have been more mature during Jesus' childhood, more capable of handling evidential contexts like having conversations with Joseph and Mary about the relevant issues. In some ways, the unbelief of Jesus' brothers is easier to explain if they were children born from Mary after Jesus' birth or cousins born later rather than earlier.

Even if somebody concludes that a perpetual virginity scenario offers a better explanation of the brothers' unbelief, I don't think it would be much of an advantage. As I said in an earlier post, an advantage for a particular view of the brothers in one context can be accompanied by a disadvantage in another context. What we're after is the best explanation of the evidence as a whole. As the post just linked argues, the view that Mary gave birth to other children is the most efficient explanation on balance, even though it's not the best explanation of every piece of evidence. A Joseph who was older at the time of his marriage to Mary better explains his death prior to Jesus' public ministry, and the perpetual virginity view was held by more of the church fathers, for example, but the advantages of a perpetual virginity view are accompanied by more numerous and weightier disadvantages.