Robert Boylan’s critique of Joe Heschmeyer’s use of the New Eve typology to support Marian doctrines, such as the Immaculate Conception, rests on shaky historical and theological ground. Far from exposing flaws in Catholic teaching, Boylan’s argument reveals his own misreading of the Church Fathers, inconsistent handling of sources, and reliance on logical missteps. 

As a former Catholic turned Mormon apologist, Boylan should recognize the coherence of theological development—yet his analysis falls short. This article dismantles his position by addressing four key issues:

1. Misinterpretation of the Church Fathers – Boylan selectively quotes early Christian writers while ignoring their broader context and consensus.
2. Inconsistent Standards and Mormon Weaknesses – He applies uneven criteria to historical sources and sidesteps the implications of his own restorationist framework.
3. Logical Fallacies – His critique leans on strawmen, cherry-picking, and arguments from silence.
4. The Positive Case – A proper reading of scripture, the Fathers, and tradition affirms Mary’s sinlessness as the New Eve.

1. Misinterpretation of the Church Fathers

Boylan claims that early Fathers like Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Ephrem the Syrian, and John Chrysostom did not affirm Mary’s sinlessness or the Immaculate Conception. A closer look at their writings, alongside additional voices like Ignatius and Origen, contradicts this.

A) Ignatius of Antioch (c. 107 AD) 

As one of the earliest Christian writers, Ignatius links Mary’s purity to Christ’s triumph over sin. In his Letter to the Ephesians 19.1, he writes, 

“The virginity of Mary… was hidden from the prince of this world.”

This near-apostolic testimony—penned within decades of John’s Gospel—presents Mary’s virginity as a divine mystery integral to the Incarnation. Sin would undermine this concealment from Satan, suggesting her unique sanctity from the outset.

B) Justin Martyr (100–165 AD) 

Boylan cites Dialogue with Trypho 17 and 23, noting that Justin calls only Jesus sinless, and infers Mary’s sinfulness. This misses the mark. In Dialogue 100, Justin states, 

“Eve, a virgin and incorrupt, conceived the word of the serpent and brought forth disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy when the angel Gabriel announced the good tidings.” 

He reinforces this in First Apology 33: 

“He became man by the Virgin, that the disobedience which proceeded from the serpent might be destroyed in the same manner in which it originated.” 

Justin’s New Eve typology parallels Christ’s sinless obedience (Romans 5:19) with Mary’s, implying her sinlessness as necessary to reverse Eve’s fall.

C) Irenaeus of Lyons (130–202 AD) 

Boylan points to Against Heresies 3.16.7, where Irenaeus notes Christ “repelled” Mary’s “untimely haste” at Cana (John 2:4), suggesting sin. This misreads both scripture and Irenaeus. The phrase “What have I to do with you?” is a Semitic idiom signaling a difference in mission, not a moral rebuke—a view shared by Protestant scholars like A.T. Robertson. 

More decisively, Irenaeus writes in 3.22.4: 

“As [Eve] was led astray by the word of an angel… so did the Virgin Mary, by means of the word of an angel, receive the glad tidings that she should bear God, being obedient to His word.” He adds in 5.19.1: “By her obedience, [Mary] became the cause of salvation for herself and the whole human race.” 

A sinful Mary could not untie Eve’s knot of sin. Her sinlessness is a logical necessity.

D) Tertullian (160–220 AD) 

Boylan cites On the Flesh of Christ 7 to argue Tertullian imputed sin to Mary. Tertullian’s views are complex, but in On the Flesh of Christ 17, he states, “While Eve was still a virgin, the word of the devil crept in to erect an edifice of death. Likewise, through a Virgin, the Word of God was introduced to set up a structure of life.” Even if Tertullian wavers elsewhere, his New Eve typology aligns with Justin and Irenaeus. His On the Veiling of Virgins 6 adds, 

“She who bore the Word remained a virgin,” 

affirming her unique role. If there are contradictions, or if Boylan tries to argue using something else he said, it only proves Tertullian as an unfit source in this regard. He left the faith, and would be expected to have differing views. 

E) Ephrem the Syrian (306–373 AD) 

Boylan dismisses Ephrem’s Carmen Nisib. 27: 

“Thou and thy mother are the only ones who are totally beautiful… in Thy Mother no stain.” 

He argues that Ephrem’s mention of Mary’s “redemption” contradicts the Immaculate Conception. This misreads Catholic theology, which holds that Mary was preemptively redeemed by prevenient grace (Luke 1:28, kecharitomene: a completed state of grace). Ephrem doubles down in Hymns on the Nativity 11.6: 

“Mary bore the silent Word, pure and untouched by any stain of sin.” 

His Mariology is too explicit to dodge. 

F) Origen (c. 248 AD) 

Origen, often overlooked, writes in Homilies on Luke 17.6:

“Mary alone is called full of grace, for she alone was worthy to conceive the Word.” 

This bridges Luke 1:28 with theological inference, supporting her sinlessness. Even if he doesn’t outright say it, it surely does not contradict Mary’s sinlessness. 

G) John Chrysostom (347–407 AD) 

Boylan seizes on Homily on Matthew 44, where Chrysostom comments on Mary’s request at the Wedding at Cana (John 2:3–4). He suggests she sought to “exercise authority over Jesus” by prompting Him to act, interpreting Christ’s response: “Woman, what have I to do with you? My hour has not yet come,” as a rebuke. Boylan takes this as evidence that Chrysostom viewed Mary as sinful or presumptuous. This reading, however, misjudges both Chrysostom’s intent and his broader witness.

First, context is key. Eastern Fathers like Chrysostom often employed rhetorical flourish—exaggeration or dramatic phrasing—to emphasize Christ’s divine authority or human obedience. In this homily, his focus is on Jesus’ sovereignty over His miracles, not Mary’s moral state. The phrase “What have I to do with you?” (Greek: Ti emoi kai soi) is a Semitic idiom, not a personal reprimand. It signals a distinction in purpose or timing, as seen elsewhere in scripture (e.g., 2 Samuel 16:10), and doesn’t imply sin—a point conceded by many scholars, including Protestants like F.F. Bruce. Chrysostom’s remark about Mary’s “authority” is thus pastoral, not doctrinal: he’s highlighting human impatience against divine timing, not accusing her of sin.

More crucially, Chrysostom’s wider writings reveal a high Mariology that aligns with the early Church’s consensus. In On the Priesthood 3.6, he praises her purity: 

“The Virgin’s womb, a holy dwelling, received the Son of God.” 

This isn’t mere poetry. It frames Mary as a consecrated vessel, unfit for sin. Similarly, in Homily on the Gospel of Matthew 4.3, he writes, 

“Christ passed through the Virgin’s womb as through a gate of purity.”

Here he teaches her undefiled state as essential to the Incarnation. Elsewhere, in Homily on Psalm 44 (or 45 in some numbering), he declares, 

“The Word dwelt in the undefiled tabernacle of the Virgin and built Himself a temple.” 

These passages consistently portray Mary as pure and set apart, echoing the New Eve typology of earlier Fathers like Irenaeus.

Chrysostom’s approach reflects his Eastern milieu, where Mary’s role was often celebrated liturgically rather than systematically defined. His Homily on the Nativity (preserved in fragments) includes this gem: 

“What shall I say of the Virgin who bore the unapproachable One? She is the gate through which the King of glory entered.”

This isn’t a one-off—liturgical texts from his era, like the Byzantine Akathist Hymn (emerging in the East around his time), call Mary “immaculate” and “unblemished,” suggesting a tradition he operated within. While he doesn’t explicitly address the Immaculate Conception, his language of purity and divine election leaves little room for sin.

Boylan’s cherry-picking of Homily 44 ignores this broader context. If Chrysostom personally speculated about Mary’s imperfections (a debated point among scholars), it reflects a preacher’s latitude, not a rejection of her sanctity. His contemporaries like Ephrem and Athanasius, affirm her sinlessness explicitly, and Chrysostom never contradicts them outright. 

As Jaroslav Pelikan observes in The Christian Tradition (Vol. 3), 

“Chrysostom’s rhetorical style occasionally obscures his alignment with the Church’s growing Marian devotion, but his theology remains consistent with it.” 

Against Boylan, Chrysostom’s witness doesn’t undermine Mary’s sinlessness; reinforces her unique role in salvation history.. 

2. Inconsistent Standards and Mormon Weaknesses

Boylan applies uneven standards of embracing Fathers when they suit him but dismissing them when they don’t. More critically, his Mormon lens which is rooted in the Great Apostasy, crumbles under facts. If the Church fell into error so early, why do Ignatius (107 AD), Justin (150 AD), and Irenaeus (180 AD), within a generation or two of the apostles, consistently elevate Mary? Mormonism offers no comparable witnesses for its own claims in this period. Boylan’s reliance on a “restored” gospel lacks the historical heft he demands of Catholic tradition. 

It’s also a double standard to argue from silence, insisting that because the fathers weren’t explicit, that automatically implies a denial of the doctrine. If this were applied to Mormonism, Boylan would be forced to concede and admit that his entire faith is false. However, we know that won’t happen because it seems to be Boylan’s specialty to have his cake and eat it too. 

3. Logical Fallacies

Boylan’s critique falters on three fronts:

• Argument from Silence: He assumes that if a Father doesn’t explicitly affirm Mary’s sinlessness, they rejected it. By this logic, the Mormon practice of Baptism of the Dead’s late articulation would be suspect—yet Boylan wouldn’t discard it.
• Cherry-Picking: He selects ambiguous passages (e.g., Tertullian’s Flesh of Christ 7) while ignoring explicit ones (e.g., Ephrem’s Carmen Nisib. 27).
• Strawman: He misframes the New Eve typology as Heschmeyer’s sole proof, when it’s one thread in a broader tapestry of scripture and tradition.

Here are some preemptive counters: 

• “New Eve doesn’t require sinlessness, just obedience”: 

If Mary’s role merely mirrors Eve’s without reversing sin’s effects, the typology is superficial. Irenaeus’ “cause of salvation” (5.19.1) demands more—Christ redeems Adam’s sin; Mary must parallel this for Eve. 

• “Redemption implies prior sin”:

Catholic doctrine distinguishes preservation from cleansing. Mary’s “full of grace” (Luke 1:28) and Ephrem’s “no stain” confirm prevenient grace, not post-sin redemption.

4. The Positive Case: Scripture, Fathers, and Tradition

Mary’s sinlessness as the New Eve flows from three pillars:

1. Scripture: Luke 1:28 (aA kecharitomene) signals a completed state of grace, per scholars like A.T. Robertson. Genesis 3:15 (enmity with the serpent) and Revelation 12:1 (woman clothed with the sun) offer typological roots, echoed by Ephrem and Origen.
2. Fathers: From Ignatius to Chrysostom, the early Church saw Mary as pure and pivotal. Jaroslav Pelikan notes in The Christian Tradition (Vol. 1), 

“The New Eve typology… logically implies Mary’s purity as integral to the Incarnation.”

3. Tradition: Luigi Gambero’s Mary and the Fathers traces this “seed planted early, flowering in later dogma”—a development Boylan mislabels as invention.

Mary’s sinlessness isn’t an isolated claim but a theological necessity: Christ’s sinless humanity required a sinless vessel, just as His obedience undid Adam’s fall.A

In Conlusion:

Boylan’s critique of Heschmeyer misreads history and theology, faltering under the weight of evidence. The Fathers from Ignatius’ near-apostolic witness to Ephrem’s poetic clarity, present Mary as the sinless New Eve, a truth rooted in scripture (Luke 1:28, Genesis 3:15) and unbroken tradition. His selective citations and logical leaps can’t overturn this consensus. Far from deception, Heschmeyer’s argument reflects the early Church’s mind: a reality Boylan’s restorationist framework fails to disprove.

Ultimately, Boylan’s insistence on viewing Marian doctrine as invention overlooks the Church’s organic development of doctrine, as seen through centuries of patristic.

Follow on X: https://twitter.com/33degree3

Subscribe on Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/@LiminalApologetics/videos