New Eve

[Peter]

This is placed in Christian History for a reason. I want there to be a simple discussion about the historical development of the concept of the "New Eve."

Please keep in mind that this is an historical discussion. Therefore I would prefer that historical quotes be used.
NO OPINIONS!

Now, to set the discussion. It is fairly common knowledge that Eastern Christianity and Roman Western Christianity consider the New Eve to be Mary, the Mother of Jesus. However, I came across a new explanation that states that the New Eve is the Church.

All I am looking for is an historical paper trail for each view point. Please cite all references. Thank you.

The Reader Peter

 

[prodromos]

I found this from Pope Pius XII in his encyclical Munificentissimus Deus (1950)

39. We must remember especially that, since the second century, the Virgin Mary has been designated by the holy Fathers as the new Eve, who, although subject to the new Adam, is most intimately associated with him in that struggle against the infernal foe which, as foretold in the protoevangelium,[44] would finally result in that most complete victory over the sin and death which are always mentioned together in the writings of the Apostle of the Gentiles​

Alas, he doesn't give any references.

John

 

[Metanoia02]

Here is th earliest reference I could find:

Irenaeus


"Consequently, then, Mary the Virgin is found to be obedient, saying, ‘Behold, O Lord, your handmaid; be it done to me according to your word.’ Eve, however, was disobedient, and, when yet a virgin, she did not obey. Just as she, who was then still a virgin although she had Adam for a husband—for in paradise they were both naked but were not ashamed; for, having been created only a short time, they had no understanding of the procreation of children, and it was necessary that they first come to maturity before beginning to multiply—having become disobedient, was made the cause of death for herself and for the whole human race; so also Mary, betrothed to a man but nevertheless still a virgin, being obedient, was made the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race. . . . Thus, the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. What the virgin Eve had bound in unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosed through faith" (Against Heresies 3:22:24 [A.D. 189]).

"The Lord then was manifestly coming to his own things, and was sustaining them by means of that creation that is supported by himself. He was making a recapitulation of that disobedience that had occurred in connection with a tree, through the obedience that was upon a tree [i.e., the cross]. Furthermore, the original deception was to be done away with—the deception by which that virgin Eve (who was already espoused to a man) was unhappily misled. That this was to be overturned was happily announced through means of the truth by the angel to the Virgin Mary (who was also [espoused] to a man). . . . So if Eve disobeyed God, yet Mary was persuaded to be obedient to God. In this way, the Virgin Mary might become the advocate of the virgin Eve. And thus, as the human race fell into bondage to death by means of a virgin, so it is rescued by a virgin. Virginal disobedience has been balanced in the opposite scale by virginal obedience. For in the same way, the sin of the first created man received amendment by the correction of the First-Begotten" (ibid., 5:19:1 [A.D. 189]).

 

[Peter]

Okay. Thanks for those references. A good beginning.
We've heard from the EO and RCC. How about the other view?

We've traced the view of Mary being the New Eve back to A.D. 189. How far back can we trace the other view?

Peter

 

[PassthePeace1]

This is placed in Christian History for a reason. I want there to be a simple discussion about the historical development of the concept of the "New Eve."

Please keep in mind that this is an historical discussion. Therefore I would prefer that historical quotes be used.
NO OPINIONS!

Now, to set the discussion. It is fairly common knowledge that Eastern Christianity and Roman Western Christianity consider the New Eve to be Mary, the Mother of Jesus. However, I came across a new explanation that states that the New Eve is the Church.

All I am looking for is an historical paper trail for each view point. Please cite all references. Thank you.

The Reader Peter

Here is one from Justin Martyr.

1. St. Justin:

"We know that He, before all creatures, proceeded from the Father by His power and will,. ..and by means of the Virgin became man, that by what way the disobedience arising from the serpent had its beginning, by that way also it might have an undoing. For Eve, being a virgin and undefiled, conceiving the word that was from the serpent, brought forth disobedience and death; but the Virgin Mary, taking faith and joy, when the Angel told her the good tidings, that the Spirit of the Lord should come upon her and the power of the Highest overshadow her, and therefore the Holy One that was born of her was Son of God, answered, 'Be it to me according to Thy word.'"
-Tryph. 100.

John Henry Newman, wrote about Mary as the New Eve, he lists several ECF writings on Mary as the second Eve, in the link below.
Newman on Mary as the New Eve - part 1

 

[PassthePeace1]

Okay. Thanks for those references. A good beginning.
We've heard from the EO and RCC. How about the other view?

We've traced the view of Mary being the New Eve back to A.D. 189. How far back can we trace the other view?

Peter

I think it would be later, than Martin Luther...

"The infusion of Mary's soul was effected without original sin... From the first moment she began to live she was free from all sin." - Martin Luther (Sermon: "On the Day of the Conception of the Mother of God).
Luther believed in the Immaculate Conception right up to his death... it was the preparation of Virgin Mary to be the second Eve

 

[Rick Otto]

I can't imagine even the most surly teenager being so visited, would or could, answer any other thing, than some version of 'Be it to me according to Thy word.'"

Sorry, don't mean to be mean, but I don't find these guys convincing on this.

 

[Rick Otto]

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

I can't imagine even the most surly teenager being so visited, would or could, answer any other thing, than some version of 'Be it to me according to Thy word.'"

Sorry, don't mean to be mean, but I don't find these guys convincing on this.

Except Gideon, who said "but I..."

Except the father of John the baptist- not a surly teenager, but a priest- who replied with doubt.

Perhaps you might give that bible of yours a re-read...?

 

[Rick Otto]

I guess 7 times cover-to-cover, with all the studies aside, ain't enough.

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

I guess 7 times cover-to-cover, with all the studies aside, ain't enough.

Apparently not.

If in 51 years you've only read 7 times, I wonder what you've done with your other 44 years?
Study to show yourself approved, says the Apostle.

j/k

My first reply was tongue-in-cheek. One can read the scriptures a million times and miss much- whether through inattention or spiritual blindness.

Archiamandrite Vasileos says of holy scripture that "outside the Church, it (the holy word) remains sealed and incomprehensible."

 

[thereselittleflower]

I guess 7 times cover-to-cover, with all the studies aside, ain't enough.

I don't think God is too impressed with how many times we have read the bible cover to cover.



Peace

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

I don't think God is too impressed with how many times we have read the bible cover to cover.



Peace

Indeed-Satan quotes scripture, and a parrot can be taught to utter the syllables. Likewise, some of the foremost biblical scholars are atheists.

When the words have entered the inner man and transformed him/her, that is when the words become Words.

Intellectual pride is an impenetrable barrier which keeps out the living seed and keeps in the illusion of centrality.

 

[thereselittleflower]

Indeed-Satan quotes scripture, and a parrot can be taught to utter the syllables. Likewise, some of the foremost biblical scholars are atheists.

When the words have entered the inner man and transformed him/her, that is when the words become Words.

Intellectual pride is an impenetrable barrier which keeps out the living seed and keeps in the illusion of centrality.

Well said.



Peace

 

[Rick Otto]

"I don't think God is too impressed with how many times we have read the bible cover to cover. "

Why not?

 

[Peter]

Phweeeeeeet! Time out! You all have high jacked my thread! Stop it! This is intended to be a serious scholarly discussion regarding the history and development of the opposing views of "The New Eve: The Church or the Virgin Mary." If you cannot keep to this topic and my request, I am going to have ask you kindly to step outside. Thank you.

If you don't hold to one or the other then just kindly keep your opinions to yourself. These two thoughts DO exist. I am interested in tracing their history and development. One of the views I believe to be post-modern, but am looking for evidence.

Peter

 

[LionandLambMinistry]

I don't think God is too impressed with how many times we have read the bible cover to cover.



Peace

I couldn't agree more. HE wants us to be obedient above all else

 

[Peter]

What the? Did you not read my last post? PLEASE!!!!!!!!!
This is NOT a debate or a forum for your opinions. This thread is for true scholarly exchange. If you have something of value to offer to the OP, then do so. Other wise, there's the door.

Peter

 

[LionandLambMinistry]

What the? Did you not read my last post? PLEASE!!!!!!!!!
This is NOT a debate or a forum for your opinions. This thread is for true scholarly exchange. If you have something of value to offer to the OP, then do so. Other wise, there's the door.

Peter

Yeah, okay, well, the "New Eve" "thought" is the Doctrine of Demons. How's that for an on topic response!

 

[IgnatiusOfAntioch]

I can't imagine even the most surly teenager being so visited, would or could, answer any other thing, than some version of 'Be it to me according to Thy word.'"

Sorry, don't mean to be mean, but I don't find these guys convincing on this.

Hmm? I would think you would recognize it. Maybe the whole context will help.

See if you haven't read this before:


Luk 1:26 In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth,
Luk 1:27 to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.
Luk 1:28 And he came to her and said, "Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you!"
Luk 1:29 But she was greatly troubled at the saying, and considered in her mind what sort of greeting this might be.
Luk 1:30 And the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God.
Luk 1:31 And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus.
Luk 1:32 He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David,
Luk 1:33 and he will reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there will be no end."
Luk 1:34 And Mary said to the angel, "How shall this be, since I have no husband?"
Luk 1:35 And the angel said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God.
Luk 1:36 And behold, your kinswoman Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son; and this is the sixth month with her who was called barren.
Luk 1:37 For with God nothing will be impossible."
Luk 1:38 And Mary said, "Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word." And the angel departed from her.

Also, in reference to the OP, I think that is probably the earliest reference.

Grace and peace to all here.

Your brother in Christ.