Protestants often claim that the veneration of Mary is a much later accretion into Christianity. However, the truth is the exact opposite: we see a shockingly high view of Mary early. This is not what we would expect if Protestantism were true.
For example, the Second Sibylline Oracle, which scholars generally date to the second century, describes the fate of the damned, who have rejected the opportunity to repent after death. This opportunity was made possible by Mary’s hand: “For he [God] gave seven days of ages to erring men for repentance through the intercession of the holy virgin” (312).
Although the Virgin is not identified by name, there is little doubt about who she is. First, there is no debate that whoever wrote this passage was a Christian. This fact alone drastically narrows down who could plausibly be “the holy virgin.” Second, the Oxford classicist J.L. Lightfoot identifies Mary as the holy virgin in her summary of SibOr 2:305-312: “The damned gnash teeth; wish to die and cannot; plead in vain; God turns his face away, for they have had seven days of ages for repentance through the Virgin Mary.”
The eminent Yale scholar John J. Collins argued (and I think rightly so) that this part of the text was completed before A.D. 150: “Since no other historical event is mentioned after the destruction of Jerusalem, the Christian redaction should probably be dated no later than A.D. 150.” Thus, we have an incredibly early text proclaiming that Mary can intercede for the dead.
It gets worse for Protestants. We have two apparently independent texts converging on a tradition that Mary gave birth to Christ without pain. Given the fact that pain in childbirth was a consequence of the Fall (Gen. 3:16), these texts seem to set up an Eve-Mary typology.
The first text is the Ascension of Isaiah, which the world’s leading expert on the text, Enrico Norelli, dates to the end of the first century. After carrying the Lord for a short time, Mary sees her baby suddenly appear outside her womb. Apparently, news of this event spread around Bethlehem: “But many said, ‘She did not give birth; the midwife did not go up (to her), and we did not hear (any) cries of pain’” (11:14).
This text used to be accused of promoting Docetism, a heresy that denies that Christ had real flesh, but that accusation was refuted by Darrel D. Hannah in his 1999 article “The Ascension of Isaiah and Docetic Christology.” Since the text elsewhere affirms that Christ had a true body, the emphasis here is that Christ’s birth was miraculous and strange. Indeed, Mary’s “womb was found as (it was) at first, before she had conceived” (11:9).
The second text is The Odes of Solomon, which is generally dated to either the late first or early second century. James Charlesworth adds another important detail about this text: “I highlight the Odes of Solomon because it may well have been composed within the community that gave us the Gospel of John and helps us understand the marvelous text and the Logos Christology.” If this is true, then it has enormous historical and theological weight.
Odes 19:6-9 says, “The womb of the Virgin caught [it], and she conceived and gave birth. And the Virgin became a mother in great compassion and she was in labor and bore a son. And she felt no pains/grief, because it was not useless/for no reason. And she did not require a midwife, because he [God] kept her alive like a man.”
The “it” is referring to milk, which came from the Father and was given to Mary through the Holy Spirit. Because of this strange imagery, this text has been accused of being gnostic. However, this charge was refuted by Edward Engelbrecht and Michael Lattke, who both demonstrated that orthodox Church Fathers (like St. Irenaeus and St. Clement of Alexandria) used similar images of God’s milk. It would be especially strange for Irenaeus, who directly opposed the Gnostics, to use this imagery if it were heretical (Against Heresies 4.38.1; cf. Lattke 270).
It is no surprise, then, that in the second century we see Mary being called the New Eve. The world’s leading historian on Marian devotion, Stephen J. Shoemaker, writes, “The notion of Mary’s virginity would receive further theological development during the course of the second century, first at the hands of Justin Martyr (ca. 100-165) and later by Irenaeus of Lyons (d. 202), both of whom wove from this doctrine a portrait of Mary as the New Eve, whose chastity and obedience undid the original Eve’s primordial immorality and disobedience.”
Among early Christians we find the belief that Mary could intercede for the dead (the concept of interceding saints goes back to ancient Judaism) and that she painlessly birthed Christ, exempting her from Eve’s curse and elevating her to the status of a new, better Eve. Even if Protestants think Catholics are wrong about Mary, they cannot say any longer that Marian veneration was a later accretion.