No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
From ‘God-Bearer’ to ‘Mother of God’ in the Later Fathers
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 March 2016
Extract
The interest of this paper lies in the distinction between θεoτόкoς (‘Theotokos’), ‘God-bearer’, and words or phrases which are more precisely translated as ‘mother of God’, especially μήτηρ θεoυ̂ (‘mētēr theou’) and θεoμήτωρ (‘theomētōr’) in Greek and mater Dei in Latin. It concentrates on the usage of Greek and Latin Christian writers between the later fourth century and the eighth century. For those who believe that ‘mother of God’ is the only proper rendering in English of θεoτόкoς, it must seem a non-issue. Indeed, insofar as they have most of the tradition on their side, this enquiry may appear redundant, impertinent, or sectarian. To leave the matter there, however, would be to leave important questions unasked. Historical study is not best served by the indiscriminate translation of θεoτόкoς as ‘mother of God’, or at least by a translation that fails clearly to distinguish between θεoτόкoς and direct equivalents of ‘mother of God’.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Ecclesiastical History Society 2004
References
1 I use the commonest translation of Seoto Koc,, while recognizing that the meaning of the Greek extends from conception to giving birth. Some of the evidence in this paper was presented in a more popular format in ‘“Mother of God”?’, in D.F. Wright, ed., Chosen by God. Mary in Evangelical Perspective (1989), 120-40.
2 Mascall, Eric L., ‘The Mother of God’, in Stacpoole, Alberic, ed., Mary’s Place in Christian Dialogue (Slough, 1982), 91–2 Google Scholar; Parker, T.M., ‘Devotion to the Mother of God’, in Mascall, E.X., ed., The Mother of God (Westminster, 1949), 68 Google Scholar.
3 On pre-431 use of θεoτόкoς, see briefly, with literature, Michael O’Carroll, Theotokos, 2nd edn (Wilmington, DE, 1983), 342-3; more fully, Marek Starowieyski, Xe Titre θεoτόкoς, avant le concile d’Ephese’, Studia Patristica, 19 (1989), 236-42.
4 Julian, cited by Cyril of Alexandria, Contra Julianum, 8 (PG 76, col. 901), ‘You [Christians] never stop calling Mary θεoτόкoς,’; Gregory of Nazianzus, Epistle 101 (PG 37, col. 1177), ‘Whoever fails to accept holy Mary as θεoτόкoς, is bereft of the Godhead’.
5 A fourth-century neologism, according to Heiner Grote, ‘Maria/Marienfrommigkeit II. Kirchengeschichthch’, in G. Krause et al., eds, Theotogische Realenzyklopddie (Berlin, 1977-), 22:121.
6 A second-century inscription from Sidyma (on the coast of Asia Minor directly opposite Rhodes) almost certainly reads της θεoτόкoς γης (only ‘εo’ are unclear): E. Kalinka, ed., Tituli Lyciae, Tituli Asiae Minoris, 2 (Vienna, 1920), 63, recorded in Barber, E.A., ed., Creek-English Lexicon. A Supplement (Oxford, 1968), 70 Google Scholar, but noted only by Starowieyski, ‘Le Titrc’, 240, to my knowledge.
7 Starowieyski, ‘Le Titre’, 240; Theodore Klauser, ‘Gottesgebarerin (θεoτόкoς)’, in T. Klauser et al., eds, Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum (Stuttgart, 1950-), 11:1095-9.
8 Conveniently in J. Stevenson, Creeds, Councils and Controversies, rev. W.H.C. Frend (1989), 306.
9 Orthodox Faith, 3.12 (PG 94, col. 1028).
10 Starowieyski, ‘Le Titre’, 236-7, accepts the testimony of Socrates Scholasticus, Historia ecclesiastica, 7.32 (PG 67, col. 812) to an extended discussion by Origen in his Romans commentary, of which the original is lost.
11 An Exposition of the Creed (1659), 362; 3rd edn 1669 (the last by Pearson), ed. R. Sinker (Cambridge, 1882), 340 n. 1.
12 Homilia paschalis 17.3 (PG 77, col. 777); S. Alvarez Campos, ed., Corpus Marianum Patrislicum, 7 vols in 8 (Burgos, 1970-85) [hereafter CMP], 4/i:226, no. 3282, and less precisely Homilia paschalis 17.2 (CMP 4/1:225, no. 3281). Texts from Cyril fill 250 pages in CMP. An occurrence of Osourrrmp found earlier in Epistola 45.2 (in PG 77, col. 229) is absent from editions since ACO, i/vi:151. CMP, 4/1:312, no. 3405, has the correct Greek text, but the parallel Latin version has not lost Deique matre.
13 See references in Lampe, G.W.H., Patristic Greek Lexicon (Oxford, 1961), 629 Google Scholar (θεoμητωρ), 868 (μητηρ); S. Jean Damascene, Homelies sur la Nativiti et la Dormition, ed. P. Voulet, Sources Chretiennes, 80 (Paris, 1961), 58, 60, 62, 68, 74, 108, 122, 124, 130, 134, 136, 144, 146, 150, 154, 158, 160, 162, 174, 178, 180, 184, 188, 192, 194. Several pages contain more than one occurrence.
14 Ibid., 84, 116.
15 Orthodox Faith, 3.12, 4.14: PG 94, cols 1032, 1161; ed. B. Kotter, Die Schriften des Johannes von Damaskos, 2, Patristische Texte und Studien, 12 (Berlin and New York, 1973), 136, 202.
16 CMP, 4/ii: 306 no. 4538, 314 no. 4546, 328 no. 4559, 330 no. 4560, 335 no. 4565, 342 no. 4582, 344 no. 4586,346 no. 4590, 348 no. 4595, 349 no. 4597, 354 no. 4607-8, 360-1 no. 4620.
17 ACO, 3:31, 4/ii:311–12.
18 CMP, 4/1:493, no. 3682; 134 no. 3119, 131 no. 3117; 4/ii:120, no. 4101, 167 nos 4245, 4247, 98 no. 4059.
19 Epistle 1.54: PG 78, cols 216-17; CMP, 4/1:436-7, no. 3589.
20 ‘Constantine and the “Mother of God”: Oratio ad sanctorum coetum 11: 9’, Studia Patristka, 24 (1993), 355-9.
21 Robin Lane Fox, Pagans and Christians (1986), 627-62, 777-81; Edwards, Mark, ‘The Constantinian circle and the Oration to the Saints ’, in Edwards, Mark, Goodman, Martin, and Price, Simon, eds, Apologetics in the Roman Empire (Oxford, 1999), 251–75 Google Scholar; Drake, H.A., Constantine and the Bishops (Baltimore and London, 2000), 292–305, 516–17 Google Scholar. Earlier literature in Siegmar Dopp and Wilhelm Geerlings, eds, Dictionary of Early Christian Literature, trans. Matthew O’Connell (New York, 2000), 141-2.
22 Bracketed by IA. Heikel, ed., in Eusebius Werke, I, Griechischen Christhchcn Schriftsteller, 7 (Leipzig, 1902), 168 (CMP, 2:52, no. 524). A new edition in Griechischen Christhchen Schriftsteller is awaited from Friedhelm Winkelmann.
23 CMP, 2:119, no. 684; ed. J. Reuss, Matthaus-Kommentare aus der Griechischen Kirche, Texte und Untersuchungen, 61 (Berlin, 1957), 55. Dopp and Geerlings, Dictionary, 561-2.
24 Cf. Reuss, Matthaus-Kommentare, xxvi-xxix; M. Geerard, Clavis Patrum Graecorum, 5 vols and Suppl. (Turnhout, 1983-98), 2:284-5 no. 3562, 349 no. 3840.
25 Carmina moratia 8:22-4 (PG 37, col. 650; CMP, 2:258, no. 917).
26 As n. 11 above.
27 Hexaemewn, 5:65 (PL 14, cols 233/248); De uirginibus, 2:7 (PL 16, cols 209/220); Expositio in Lucam, 2:25 (PL 15, cols 1561/1644); CMP, 3:78, no. 1718, 141 no. 1988, 93 no. 1779.
28 De incarnatione, 2.2, 5, 6; 3.12; 5.1; 7.25, 29 (PL 50, cols 32, 36-7, 43, 46, 68, 98, 254, 266).
29 See Loofs, F., Nestoriana. Die Fragmenta des Nestorius (Halle, 1905), 167–8, 245–7, 252 Google Scholar; CMP, 4/1:25-6, no. 2959, 23-4 nos 2956-8, 28 no. 2966. Loofs, Nestoriana, 212 (CMP 4/i:10 no. 2931) is spurious: Geerard, Clavis, 3:126, no. 5761.
30 Ed. Chapman, John, Notes on the Early History of the Vulgate Gospels (Oxford, 1908), 219 Google Scholar. Cf. Chadwick, Henry, Priscillian of Avila (Oxford, 1976), 102–9 Google Scholar.
31 Pearson, Exposition, 362-3 (ed. Sinker, 340 n.i); Photius, Bibliotheca codex 228, ed. R. Henry, 8 vols (Paris, 1959-77), 4:117, 121; Leo, Epistola 165.2 (PL 54, cols n 57-8).
32 Madonnas that Maim (Glasgow, 1999), 4-5. ‘The Church after Vatican II has … been curiously coy about the material fact of Mary’s motherhood: Mary’s womb, like her milk, has become invisible’ (23).
33 See Boss, Sarah Jane, Empress and Handmaid. On Nature and Gender in the Cult of the Virgin Mary (London and New York, 2000), 37–8, 49–50 Google Scholar, with pl. 3-4 (after p. 126). For the east, see the paper by Jane Baun elsewhere in this volume.
34 Ignatius, Smyrnaeans, 1.1.
35 Tavard, George H., The Thousand Faces of the Virgin Mary (Collegeville, MN, 1996), 78 Google Scholar.
36 Limberis, 140.
37 For example, in Tavard, The Thousand Faces, 76. Another question to be pursued is when ‘the Mother’ without further qualification entered Christian use. It seems to be established in John of Damascus.