Recently, after watching a video titled “Why Mary’s Assumption is Indefensible” by Gavin Ortlund from Truth Unites, I came across an argument Gavin used against the patristic support for the Assumption of Mary by Epiphanius.
Around the 41:00-44:00 minute marks of the video, Gavin introduces ” The Relative Clause Argument” in the context of the passage from St. Epiphanius
Which is here:
“And if I should say anything more in her praise, [she is] like Elijah, who was a 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.” (Epiphanius. Against Collyridians,1 who make offerings to Mary. (n.d.). Panarion: Books II & III. See Page 641)
In the video, Gavin, whom I admire and have much respect for, argues for the relative clause argument regarding this passage. To do this, Gavin demonstrates a passage that gives relative clauses that describe each figure. Gavin gives us the following sentence,(Politics aside):
“George W. Bush was a president who served with honor, just like his father, who presided over the final years of the Cold War; and Ronald Reagan, who oversaw a resilient economy; and Jimmy Carter, who fought for disease prevention and human rights abroad.”
With this sentence, Gavin argues that no one can insist that George W. Bush must have presided over the final years of the Cold War. The relative clause only allows for George W. Bush to serve with honor, and not preside over the Cold War, as that is reserved for his father, per the text. Gavin argues that if Epiphanius had intended to convey that Mary was assumed to heaven, hes done it in a cryptic way, as he smuggles it in the passage about Elijah. Gavin points out that shortly before this passage, Epiphanius states no one knows how Mary’s life ended.
With this example in mind, I want to demonstrate why this argument is weak or problematic for two reasons.
Why The Relative Clause Argument is Implausible, If not Impossible:
Firstly, notice that the argument hinges on an interpretation of the relative clause, assuming that because it directly refers to Elijah, it cannot imply anything about Mary.
For this argument to work, each relative clause must be interpreted as applying exclusively to its immediate antecedent; that is, each phrase describes only the closest name on the list. This would mean only Jimmy Carter fought for disease prevention abroad, and not Ronald Reagan, because of the way the sentence is structured.
Now, if the relative clause is to be applied to the passage from Epiphanius, one must believe St. Epiphanius meant only Elijah was a virgin and assumed, and that only John rested on the breast of Jesus. This interpretation would mean that Mary could not have been a virgin and could not have shared that intimate moment with Jesus. There is no in-between. The rigidity of the argument forces an exclusive assignment of attributes, leaving no room for any shared or overlapping qualities, thereby precluding the possibility that Mary could possess any of these attributes.
It seems implausible for Epiphanius to say Mary was not a virgin because his entire religious framework is dependent on the doctrine of the Virgin Birth!
The second reason this argument struggles is that it hinges on a rigid interpretation of the text. The passage’s language is poetic and comparative, and it’s not meant to be parsed with strict grammatical rules like modern prose. Insisting on narrow grammatical rules can overlook the nuance and broader implications intended to be conveyed. Imagine the loss if this were applied to other patristic sources? Simply speaking, I think Gavin brings a good presentation on the topic, but this argument should be dismissed.