THE VIRGIN AS THEOTOKOS AT EPHESUS (AD 431) AND EARLIER

Richard Price

The most familiar fact about the cult of the Virgin in the Greek Church is that at an early date it accorded
her the title of Theotokos God-bearer, or Mother of God. The two pieces of evidence most often
adduced consist firstly of the occurrence of this title on a papyrus normally dated to the third or at least
the fourth century, and secondly of a decree of the First Council of Ephesus (431).
In 1938 there was published an Egyptian papyrus in the John Rylands Library that was
immediately recognized as containing in a slightly damaged form the earliest known text of the Marian
prayer known in Latin as Sub tuum praesidium. The restored text runs:1

Under your mercy we take refuge, Theotokos. Do not overlook our petitions in adversity but
rescue us from danger, uniquely holy one and uniquely blessed one.

The evidence of the letter forms was taken to point to a date in the third century. What was startling
about this discovery was less the early use of the title than prayer being addressed to the Virgin at this
early date; it was conceded that it would be prudent to propose a slightly later dating, well into the
fourth century.2 More recently, however, the evidence of an early date in the letter forms has been
subjected to serious questioning. Apart from the general point that papyrologists are now more hesitant
in their dating of letter forms in literary papyri than they used to be, it has been argued that the most
unusual shape of the letter alpha on the papyrus, as well as the curious thickening of the ends of many
vertical strokes, have their closest parallels in Coptic literary papyri of the eighth and ninth centuries. 3
If we add this to the oddity of the early dating, since there is no other evidence of the Sub tuum
praesidium before the sixth or seventh century,4 it would clearly be imprudent to regard this papyrus
any longer as reliable evidence for the greater antiquity of this prayer.

Did Ephesus define that the Virgin is Theotokos?

As regards the supposed decree of the Council of Ephesus, defining that the Virgin is Theotokos, the
earliest text I know that refers to it is the Definition of the Second Council of Nicaea (787), which states,
Our Lady the holy Mary is properly and truly Theotokos, as the first council of Ephesus laid down
as doctrine.5 Now the Acts of Ephesus form a vast collection of authentic documents dating to the time
of the council records of sessions, letters and treatises. You can read them from beginning to end, and
you will find no hint of such a decree. Nestorius, who had criticized the use of the Theotokos title, was
indeed condemned at the first session of the council (22 June 431), but the verdict pronounced upon
him, convicting him of holding and preaching impiety, makes no mention of the Virgin and simply
says that he had blasphemed against Christ.6
It is true that the same first session of the council which condemned Nestorius also gave its
formal approval to Cyril of Alexandrias Second Letter to Nestorius, and that this letter states that the
holy fathers confidently called the holy Virgin Theotokos.7 But this is not a doctrinal definition.
What of Cyrils Third Letter to Nestorius? This asserts more roundly, Since the holy Virgin gave

1
John Rylands Papyrus 470, published in Roberts (1938), 46-7. I follow the restoration of the text in
Giamberardini (1975), 72-4.
2
Gambero (2001) fails to find any evidence apart from the John Rylands papyrus for the invocation of Mary prior
to Nicaea.
3
Frster (2005), esp. 106-7.
4
So Frster, loc. cit., adducing P. Vindob. G. 17.944.
5
ACO, III. 3, p. 824, 9-12. The word for laid down as doctrine is .
6
ACO I. 1/2, p. 54, 17-28.
7
Cyril of Alexandria, Second Letter to Nestorius 7, ACO I. 1/1, p. 28, 18-19.

1
fleshly birth to God united to flesh hypostatically, for this reason we declare her to be Theotokos.8 And
one of the Twelve Anathemas (or Chapters) that conclude the letter runs:9

If anyone does not profess that Emmanuel is in truth God and that therefore the holy Virgin is
Theotokos (for she gave fleshly birth to the Word from God made flesh), let him be anathema.

This raises the question whether this Third Letter was also formally approved at Ephesus.
During the council the bishops who formed a rival council round John of Antioch, and who accused
this Third Letter of Apollinarianism, did indeed make the claim that Cyrils council had approved this
letter.10 But it is in fact doubtful whether it was even read out at Cyrils council: it comes in the acts of
the first session of the council, but as a clumsy insertion, and certainly there is no evidence that the
council adopted it as its own teaching.11 However, the Definition of the Council of Chalcedon (451)
gave formal approval to the conciliar letters of the blessed Cyril, meaning the two letters by Cyril that
were read out at the council, namely his Second Letter to Nestorius and the letter he wrote to John of
Antioch in 433 accepting the so-called Formula of Reunion.12 These were conciliar in the sense that
they were seen to encapsulate the teaching of the Council of Ephesus, even if that to John of Antioch
had in fact been written eighteen months later. However, by the mid-sixth century, the standing of the
Third Letter to Nestorius had risen to such a height that it was generally assumed that it had been
formally approved at both Ephesus and Chalcedon.13
It is this that must surely lie behind the assertion of the Second Council of Nicaea (cited above)
that Ephesus issued such a definition. By the end of the ninth century conciliar synopses had appeared
that gave an account of the work of all the major councils, and here the dominant role of the Third Letter
and its anathemas becomes explicit. One of the fullest of these, the Collection and Account of all the
holy ecumenical and local Councils, includes in its account of the Council of Ephesus the full text of
the Twelve Chapters contained in this letter, on the grounds that they were issued by the council as a
decree. The text of the Chapters is prefaced by the following statement:14

For a fuller refutation of Nestorius blasphemy and a clearer explanation of the faith and
profession concerning Christ our God, the sacred council drew up and issued [a compilation]
by Cyril of Twelve Chapters.

It is manifest that this ascription of the Twelve Chapters to the Council of Ephesus was a myth,
which has no support in the authentic conciliar Acts. We must still inquire why Ephesus did not in fact
issue a formal definition that the Virgin is Theotokos, even though such a decree would have completed
the condemnation of Nestorianism. The reason for the lack of such a definition and indeed of any
positive doctrinal decree is clear from another decree of the council, dated in the Acts to 22 July.15
Nestorius stood accused not only of heresy but of imposing on converts being received into the Church
a new-fangled creed different from that of Nicaea. The reaction of the council (meaning the assembly
of bishops on the side of Cyril) was to issue a canon, later known of Canon 7 of Ephesus, of which the
key clause runs as follows:16

8
Cyril, Third Letter to Nestorius 11, ACO I. 1/1, p. 40, 3-4.
9
First Anathema, ACO I. 1/1, p. 40, 22-4.
10
See ACO I. 1/5, p. 125, 29-36 and p. 134, 1-5.
11
It comes in the proceedings of this session at ACO I. 1/2, p. 36, 16-26, as an interpolation that interrupts the
reading and discussion of the letter from Pope Celestine to Nestorius. See de Halleux (1992), 447-50.
12
See Price and Gaddis (2005), II, 13-14 and 203. The Formula of Reunion was a doctrinal statement drawn up
by the Syrian bishops, originally while the Council of Ephesus was in session (see ACO I 1/7, p. 70, 7) and
accepted by Cyril in a letter to John of Antioch (ep. 39, ACO I 1/4, 15-20, esp. 5). It affirms that the Virgin is
Theotokos.
13
See Price (2009), I, 66-71.
14
Hoffmann and W. Brandes (2013), 84-90, esp. p. 84, 53-7.
15
ACO I. 1/7, p. 105, 20-22.
16
Specifically, Nestorius agents were accused of imposing on Lydian converts from Quartodecimanism a long
paraphrase of the creed composed by Theodore of Mopsuestia, given at ACO I 1/7, 97-9.

2
 The holy council lays down that no one is allowed to produce or write or compose another
creed beside the one laid down with [the aid of] the Holy Spirit by the holy fathers assembled
at Nicaea.

At Chalcedon in 451, when the officials sent by the emperor to chair the council told the bishops that
they were required to produce a new definition of the faith, they protested strongly (albeit
unsuccessfully), claiming that this canon ruled out not merely new forms of the creed but any new
doctrinal definition.17
The point that Cyril and his council was making was not merely that it was against the canons
to produce new doctrinal definitions, but that, in contrast to the dangerous speculations of Nestorius
and his allies, the teaching of Cyril remained firmly loyal to the original Nicene faith. His most
successful and influential contribution to the debate was his Second Letter to Nestorius, in which he
pointed out that the subject of the second clause of the Nicene Creed, which speaks of Christs
incarnation and passion, is one Lord Jesus Christ the only-begotten Son of God true God from God,
begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father. Therefore even the fully human experiences of
birth, suffering and death are to be ascribed not to some combination of Godhead and manhood as their
subject, but directly to the divine Son and Word. It is this, the letter argues, that justifies calling the
Virgin Theotokos, Mother of God, since the one born of her (according to the creed) was the divine Son
himself. But this claim to strict fidelity to the creed would have been undermined if it had been formally
defined that the Virgin is Theotokos, since the creed does not use this expression.
Later ecumenical councils, from Chalcedon to Constantinople III (680-1), recognized that
protecting the Nicene faith required new definitions that aimed at clarifying the Nicene Creed. In this
new context the restraint exercised at Ephesus ceased to be comprehensible. The council was
understood (not incorrectly) to represent the victory of Cyril and his Christology. His Third Letter to
Nestorius had proved an embarrassment in the fifth century: it had been fiercely attacked at the time of
Ephesus and was pointedly ignored at Chalcedon. But by the mid-sixth century, in the context of a
dominance of what we call Neo-Chalcedonianism or Cyrillian Chalcedonianism, this letter was
regarded as one of Cyrils most important doctrinal utterances. It was natural to assume that it was one
of Cyrils conciliar letters stemming from the Council of Ephesus and canonized at Chalcedon. The
first of its Twelve Anathemas (or Chapters) with its hailing of the Virgin as Theotokos was singled
out because the mounting devotion to the Mother of God. We have seen how a presumed approval of
the Chapters at Ephesus came to be understood as a formal issuing of the Chapters by the council,
adopting them at its own decree.18 This is the origin of the myth, still frequently repeated today, that the
Council of Ephesus defined that the Virgin is Theotokos.

The Theotokos title and the Nestorian controversy

The term came into prominence and sparked one of the most famous doctrinal debates in the history of
the Church when the Syrian monk Nestorius became bishop of Constantinople in 428. He was soon
accused by monks in Constantinople and by their ally and abettor Bishop Cyril of Alexandria of
rejecting the Theotokos title. He certainly criticized the term, sometimes in strong terms. Writing to
Pope Celestine, he said he had employed both anger and leniency in dealing with heretics who called
Mary Theotokos.19 The same attitude, more diplomatically expressed, comes in texts he wrote for
circulation in the east, writing (for example) to Cyril of Alexandria, According to the more precise
nomenclature the holy Virgin should be called Christotokos [Mother of Christ] rather than Theotokos.20
Did he have the Church of Antioch behind him? Early in the controversy, Bishop Acacius of Beroea
reported to Cyril that Bishop John of Antioch had referred to the Theotokos title as an adventitious and

17
Acts of Chalcedon II/III. 7, Price and Gaddis (2005), II, 11.
18
It is to be noted that the conciliar synopses of the ninth and tenth centuries, as far as I have read them, show no
signs that their compilers studied any of the original conciliar acts.
19
Nestorius, First Letter to Celestine 2, ACO I. 2, p. 13, 6-14.
20
Nestorius, Second Letter to Cyril 7, ACO I. 1/1, p. 31, 2-3.

3
unacceptable expression.21 But this soon changed. When Celestine wrote to John criticizing Nestorius,
John wrote to Nestorius urging him to accept the Theotokos title, on the following grounds:22

This term has been rejected by none of the teachers of the church; they who have used it are
many and distinguished, while those who have not used it have not criticized those who have.

How can we account for this change of mind? John says in the same letter, I have written this
letter when in the company of many of the most God-beloved bishops and lovers of your piety. These
bishops included the learned Theodoret of Cyrrhus (in northern Syria), and we may presume that it was
Theodoret who had set John right on the previous use of the word.23 Nestorius replied to John, sending
him a sermon in which he had now said, What we preached before on the blessed and holy Virgin,
using a short designation [Christotokos], we shall now repeat with the use of more explicit names,
namely that the holy Virgin is both Theotokos and anthropotokos (that is, both Mother of God and
mother of a man). This double designation had been used already by both Theodore of Mopsuestia (the
real author of what we call Nestorianism) and Theodoret.24 That Nestorius thought that the Theotokos
title, when used on its own, did less than justice to Christs human nature is clear, but at least he no
longer accused the title of fomenting Christological heresy.
Johns statement that the Theotokos title had been widely but not universally used by the fathers
was accurate. When had the term first come into use? The church historian Socrates, writing in the mid-
fifth century, tells us that Origen (d. 254) in his commentary on the Letter to the Romans gave an ample
exposition of the sense in which the term Theotokos is used.25 Unfortunately the original Greek text of
this work is lost. The extant Latin version by Rufinus abbreviated the original, partly because he could
not lay his hands on the complete text; in any case, an excursus on the Greek term Theotokos, for
which there was no ideal Latin equivalent,26 was a natural candidate for omission. But the term is not
used anywhere in the extant writings of Origen, and this must leave us uncertain whether he ever used
it. The earliest undisputed use in an extant text is by Bishop Alexander of Alexandria in 325;27 only
slightly later are the occasional uses of the word in Eusebius of Caesarea (d. c. 340) and other
contemporaries.28 It is, however, striking that in all these instances the use of the word is incidental, and
it is not explained or justified. The implication is that by the time of the Council of Nicaea (325) the
term was already a generally recognized term, not requiring explanation, even if its use was still
infrequent.
In what contexts did this term appear before the Nestorian controversy? Writers from Eusebius
of Caesarea onwards use the term as a simple equivalent of Mary the Virgin, without placing any
theological weight on it. What more significant uses of the term do we find? It was used both in contexts
which insisted that it was truly God was became incarnate, and in contexts that insisted that God truly
became incarnate. Examples of the former are to be found in Eusebius of Caesarea and Gregory of
Nazianzus,29 and of the latter in Athanasius and Epiphanius of Salamis.30

21
Acacius of Beroea, Letter to Cyril, ACO I. 1/1, p. 100, 22-3.
22
John of Antioch, Letter to Nestorius 4, ACO I. 1/1, p. 95, 19-21.
23
See Theodoret, Hereticarum fabularum compendium (admittedly a much later work) IV. 12, PG 83. 436A,
Former, indeed ancient, teachers of the orthodox faith taught in accordance with the orthodox tradition that the
mother of the Lord is to be called Theotokos.
24
Theodore of Mopsuestia, On the incarnation, fr. 15, where Theodore approves both anthropotokos, since a
man was in Marys womb and Theotokos, since God was in the man. Similarly Theodoret, De incarnatione
Domini 35, PG 75. 1477A.
25
Socrates, Ecclesiastical History VII. 32.17 , ed. Hansen, 381.
26
The favoured Latin translation was Dei Genetrix, from which the standard English rendering, Mother of God,
derives. This disguises the fact that Mother of God (mtr theou in Greek) was a term that became widely used
only much later. See Wright (2004).
27
Alexander of Alexandria, Letter to Alexander of Thessalonica, in Athanasius, Werke III. 1, p. 28, 15-16.
28
Lampe (1961), 639.
29
Eusebius, Contra Marcellum II. 1, in Eusebius, Werke IV, 32, and Gregory Nazianzen, First Letter to Cledonius
(ep. 101) 16, Sources Chrtiennes 208, p. 42.
30
Athanasius, Contra Arianos III. 33, PG 26. 393B, and Epiphanius, Ancoratus 75.6, in Epiphanius, GCS, vol. I,
94-5.

4
 Nestorius acceptance of the Theotokos title came, however, too late to rescue him from attack.
His critics in Constantinople did not drop their campaign against him, and opposition to him and
throughout the world of the eastern Mediterranean and in Rome as well had already been powerfully
launched by Cyril of Alexandria. Why was the title so important to Cyril? It is striking that he had used
the term only once in his earlier writings.31 Add to this the fact that Cyril did not discuss or attempt to
promote an actual cult of the Virgin, involving ritual and invocation, and the charge is invited that Cyril
had little interest in the doctrinal issue in itself, but leapt at this opportunity to discredit Nestorius, just
as thirty years earlier Theophilus, his uncle and predecessor as bishop of Alexandria, had contrived the
deposition and exile of John Chrysostom, the previous bishop of Constantinople of Syrian origin. This
may suggest that the chief anxiety of the see of Alexandria was that it might be upstaged in the Christian
world by Constantinople, that had become the permanent residence of the emperor and the court at the
end of the fourth century.
But this would be to do Cyril an injustice. The heart of his concern was that casting doubt on
the belief that Mary as Theotokos had given birth to God was to cast doubt on the most basic tenet of
the Christian faith, namely that Christ is God. He wrote to Bishop Juvenal of Jerusalem that Nestorius
professed clearly that the holy Virgin is not Theotokos, which is a manifest statement that Emmanuel,
in whom are our hopes for salvation, is not truly God.32 In a letter to the clergy and laity of
Constantinople, he argued that the Theotokos title is essential to express the one subject in Christ, and
that therefore it is the Word himself who conquered death by dying on the cross.33
Cyrils first contribution to this debate was a substantial letter to the monks of Egypt, in fact
intended for general circulation, not least in Constantinople itself. Cyril argues that it is customary to
treat a mother as the mother of the whole child who is born, even though (as Cyril states and clearly
believed) the mother provides only the matter for the body, while the soul is directly created by God.34
But he is well aware that this does not take us far enough. Instead he appeals with effect to the famous
second chapter of St Pauls Letter to the Philippians: Christ Jesus, being in the form of God, did not
think it robbery to be equal with God, but emptied himself by taking the form of a servant and being
born in the likeness of men.35 As Cyril argues, it was not the manhood that emptied itself, for it had
not existed before the incarnation, let alone been divine; it was rather the very Godhead of the Word.
The phrase cannot refer to a change in the divine nature itself, but must mean that it was truly the Word
who became man, who as the sole subject in Christ took on himself the humble status of a human being,
even to the extent of being the one (and not merely in the one) who suffered on the cross. And if the
Word himself is the one who suffered on the cross, it is also the Word himself who was born of Mary,
making Mary Theotokos, Mother of God. The personal identity of Godhead and manhood in Christ was
essential for Cyril, since on it depends the fact that Christians, through reception of the body and blood
of Christ in the eucharist, receive in themselves Christs victory over death and participate in his
Godhead, being made gods by grace.36 The whole scheme of salvation unravels if the Virgin is denied
the title of Theotokos.37

The supreme dignity of the Virgin

This theme found notable expression in the sermon that Cyril delivered at Ephesus immediately after
the condemnation of Nestorius at the first session of the council. Since the greater part of the sermon is
devoted not to the dignity of the Virgin but to a diatribe against Nestorius, it does not quite deserve its

31
This was in his Commentary on Isaiah IV. 4, PG 70. 1036D. Wickham (1983), 11, n. 10, observes that even
this occurrence of the word may well be a gloss.
32
Cyril of Alexandria, Letter to Juvenal of Jerusalem (ep. 16), ACO I. 1/1, p. 97, 16-18.
33
Cyril, Letter to the clergy and people of Constantinople (ep. 18), ACO I. 1/1, p. 114, 4-9.
34
Cyril, Letter to the Monks of Egypt (ep. 1) 20, ACO I. 1/1, pp. 19-20.
35
Phil 2: 6-7, discussed by Cyril, Letter to the Monks 22-26, ACO I. 1/1, pp. 20-23.
36
Russell (2004), 191-204.
37
The objection that was pressed against Nestorius criticism of the Theotokos title was not that it undermined
the cult of the Virgin but that it undermined belief in the Godhead of Christ. This is clear from the contemporary
controversial literature. See Price (2004). The most recent statement of the opposing view is Shoemaker (2016),
205-28.

5
reputation as the most famous Marian sermon of antiquity.38 But the opening of the sermon is certainly
remarkable:39

Resplendent is the assembly I see, with all the holy men eagerly assembled, summoned by holy
Mary, Theotokos and ever-Virgin. Even though I was in great distress, the presence of the holy
fathers has changed that into joy. Now is fulfilled in us that sweet saying of the psalmodist
David, Behold! What is good or what is delightful, compared to brethren dwelling in unity?
[Ps 132:1]. Rejoice, therefore, with us, holy and mystic Trinity that has summoned all of us
here to this church of Mary Theotokos. Rejoice with us, Mary Theotokos, the venerable treasure
of the whole world, the inextinguishable lamp, the crown of virginity, the sceptre of orthodoxy,
the indestructible temple, the container of the Uncontainable, the Mother and Virgin, through
whom in the holy gospels is pronounced blessed he who comes in the name of the Lord [Mt
21:9]. Rejoice, you who contained the Uncontainable in your holy and virginal womb, through
whom the holy Trinity is glorified and worshipped throughout the world, through whom heaven
is glad, through whom angels and archangels exult, through whom demons are put to flight,
through whom the devil the tempter fell from heaven, through whom the fallen creature is
received back into heaven, through whom the whole creation, caught in the madness of idolatry,
has come to the knowledge of the truth, through whom holy baptism comes to those who
believe, through whom is the oil of gladness, through whom churches have been founded
throughout the world, through whom nations are led to repentance. Why should I say more?
Through whom the only-begotten Son of God has shone as a light to those seated in darkness
and in the shadow of death [Lk 1:79], through whom the prophets spoke, through whom the
apostles proclaim salvation to the nations, through whom the dead are raised, through whom
kings exercise their rule. Who among men40 is able to describe the much-hymned Mary?

The attribution to the Virgin of the whole work of salvation may rightly be seen as the climax in the
development of the theme of Mary as Theotokos, Mother of God. If she is able to bestow this on her
devotees, what is beyond her power to bestow? May we not turn to her in all our needs and necessities?
But this raises the question of whether a cult of Mary, involving regular recourse to her
intercession, is to be found at Ephesus, or in Cyril, or indeed in any of the Church Fathers in the patristic
golden age from Nicaea (325) to Chalcedon (451). The passages standardly cited give evidence of a felt
need (at least by virgins) to imitate the Virgin), of admiration for her, indeed (we may say) of devotion
to her, but contain nothing to suggest that prayer to the Virgin was already a normal and recognized
Christian practice.41 It is to be noted that the passage just cited says nothing of the power of Mary as
intercessor or of our need to invoke her: what it is saying is that the whole scheme of salvation depends
on the incarnation, on God the Word taking flesh, and that in this supreme saving event the Virgin
played an essential and indispensable role. The great glory of the Virgin is that without her contribution
Christ would not have been born and no one would be saved. In the extensive writings of Cyril you will
find nothing on Mary as intercessor or on the need to invoke the Virgin Mary in our prayers. This is not
because he lacked devotion to her, but because his devotion to her was of a kind that placed her in a
quite different category from that the saints venerated in popular piety, whose role was to provide relief
from the mundane trials of life, spectacularly through miracles of bodily healing.42

38
OCarroll (1982), 113. That this sermon was probably delivered on the first Sunday after Nestorius deposition
is argued by Santer (1975).
39
Cyril, Homily 4, ACO I. 1/2, 102-3.
40
is the reading of the all MSS. Schwartz bizarrely emends it to , which would produce the
meaning Who is able to call the much-hymned Virgin a human being?
41
See Bardy (1938) for presentation of these passages, which amount to little. Shoemaker (2016), who expresses
disappointment as the slightness of the patristic evidence, tries to fill the gap by appeal to apocryphal texts, such
as the Six Books Dormition Apocryphon, which he dates to the late fourth century. But such texts are difficult to
date, and if they are as early as Shoemaker claims, we would have to relegate them to a sectarian penumbra outside
the mainstream Church.
42
Already in Cyrils lifetime or soon after it, popular piety began to drawn the Virgin down to the this level. For
Egyptian amulets that appeal to the Virgin for healing or protection generally see Bruyn (2015), 122-7. The earliest
of these date to the fifth century.

6
 This point may be reinforced if we move on many centuries to the Miracles of Our Lady, of
which there are innumerable collections and paraphrases from the twelfth to the fifteenth centuries.
Quite unlike other miracle collections, the curing of the body plays no part in them. Equally exceptional
is the way in which they are devoted to the salvation of souls typically of people quite undeserving of
salvation according to the Churchs rules, but rescued by Our Lady in return for devotion to her. The
message of these texts is that a modicum of Marian piety makes up for any quantity of sin, and can
shortcut the Churchs penitential system.43 Of course, in the context of later piety these texts stress the
invocation and intercession of the Virgin. But they link up with Cyril of Alexandria, and other preachers
of his time such as Proclus of Constantinople,44 in the role they attribute to Mary, as virtually Co-
Redeemer (though this title is not used), certainly as the one who gave us our Saviour. This puts her in
a quite distinct category from the run-of-the-mill saints who were constantly invoked in private prayer,
whose shrines were centres of pilgrimage, and whose competence was on the humble level of attending
to the earthly needs that dominate the horizons of suffering mankind in this vale of tears. To express
embarrassment, as some Mariologists have done, on the rarity of reference to the Virgin as intercessor
in the Fathers of the patristic golden age loses sight of the fact that the Virgin was not accorded this
lesser dignity because a far greater one was bestowed on her.

Suggested reading

Atanassova, Antonia, Did Cyril of Alexandria invent Mariology?, in Christopher Maunders, ed.,
Origins of the Cult of the Virgin Mary (London: Burns and Oates, 2008), 105-25.
Price, Richard, Theotokos: The Title and its Significance in Doctrine and Devotion, in Sarah Boss,
ed., Mary: The Complete Resource (London: Continuum, 2007), 56-73.
, The Theotokos and the Council of Ephesus, in Christopher Maunder, ed., Origins of the Cult
of the Virgin Mary (London: Continuum, 2008), 89-103.
Wright, D.F., From God-Bearer to Mother of God in the Later Fathers, in R.N. Swanson, ed.,
The Church and Mary. Studies in Church History 39 (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2004), 22-
30.
Frances Young, Theotokos: Mary and the Pattern of Fall and Redemption in the Theology of Cyril of
Alexandria, in T.G. Weinandy and D.A. Keating, eds, The Theology of St Cyril of
Alexandria: A Critical Appreciation (London: T & T Clark, 2003), 55-74.

Works cited

Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum (ACO), Tome I: Concilium universale Ephesenum, 5 vols, ed.
Eduard Schwartz (Berlin and Leipzig: Walter de Gruyter, 1922-30).
Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum, Series Secunda (ACO), Vol. III: Concilium universale Nicaenum
secundum, 3 parts, ed. Erich Lamberz (Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2008-16).
Athanasius, Werke III. 1, ed. H.G. Opitz (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1934).
Bardy, Gustave (1938), La doctrine de lintercession de Marie chez les Pres grecs, La Vie Spirituelle
56, Supplment, 1-37.
Bruyn, Theodore de (2015), Appeals to the Intercessions of Mary in Greek Liturgical and Paraliturgical
Texts from Egypt, in L.M. Peltomaa and others, eds, Presbeia Theotokou: The Intercessory
Role of Mary across Times and Places in Byzantium (4th-9th Century) (Vienna: Verlag der
sterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2015), 115-29.
Constas, Nicholas (2003), Proclus of Constantinople and the Cult of the Virgin in Late Antiquity:
Homilies 1-5, Texts and Translations (Leiden: Brill).
Epiphanius, vol. I , ed. Karl Holl (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1915).
Eusebius, Werke IV, ed. Erich Klostermann (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1906).

43
See Price (2001).
44
See Constas (2003).

7
Frster, Hans (2005), Die lteste marianische Antiphon eine Fehldatierung? berlegungen zum
ltesten Beleg des Sub tuum praesidium, Journal of Coptic Studies 7 : 99-109.
Gambero, Luigi (2001), Patristic Intuitions of Marys Role as Mediatrix and Advocate: The Invocation
of the Faithful for her Help, Marian Studies 52: 78-101.
Giamberardini, Gabriele (1975), Il Culto Mariano in Egitto, I, sec. I-VI, 2nd edition (Jerusalem:
Franciscan Press).
Halleux, Andr de (1992), Les douze chapitres cyrilliens au concile dEphse (430-433), Revue
thologique de Louvain 23: 425-58.
Hoffmann, L.M. and Wolfram Brandes, eds (2013), Eine unbekannte Konzilssynopse (Frankfurt am M.:
Lwenklau Gesellschaft).
Lampe, G.W. (1961), A Patristic Greek Lexicon (Oxford: Oxford University Press)
OCarroll, Michael (1982), Theotokos: A Theological Encyclopedia of the Blessed Virgin Mary
(Wilmington).
Price, Richard (2001), Marian Miracles and the Sacrament of Penance, Maria 2: 46-56.
(2004), Marian Piety and the Nestorian Controversy, in R.N. Swanson, ed., The Church and
Mary. Studies in Church History 39 (Woodbridge: Boydell Press), 31-8.
(2009), The Acts of the Council of Constantinople of 553, 2 vols (Liverpool: Liverpool University
Press).
Price, Richard and Michael Gaddis (2005), The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, 3 vols (Liverpool:
Liverpool University Press).
Roberts, C.H. (1938), Catalogue of the Greek and Latin Papyri in the John Rylands library, III:
Theological and Literary Texts (Manchester: John Rylands Library).
Russell, Norman (2004), The Doctrine of Deification in the Greek Patristic Tradition (Oxford:
Oxford University Press).
Santer, M. (1975), The Authorship and Occasion of Cyril of Alexandrias Sermon on the Virgin
(Hom. Div. iv), Studia Patristica 12: 144-50.
Shoemaker, Stephen (2016), Mary in Early Christian Faith and Devotion (New Haven and London:
Yale University Press).
Socrates, Ecclesiastical History: Sokrates, Kirchengeschichte, ed. G.C. Hansen (Berlin: Akademie,
1995).
Wickham, L.R. (1983), Cyril of Alexandria: Select Letters (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Wright, D.F. (2004), From God-Bearer to Mother of God in the Later Fathers, in R.N.
Swanson, ed., The Church and Mary. Studies in Church History 39 (Woodbridge: Boydell
Press), 22-30.