Papyrus in the Rylands Library, Manchester UK
Posted on 11/06/2015 11:30:07 AM PST by NYer
Papyrus in the Rylands Library, Manchester UK
One of the things that maddens and amuses me about Protestants is something called “primitivismâ€. I’ve written about it here. “Primitivism†is the ambition to return the church to the simplest form as it was in the “early churchâ€.
The little fundamentalist church in which I grew up worked on this assumption. They were going back to basics and getting rid of all those “man made traditionsâ€. They were cutting out the denominations and prayers read out of books and all that fancy stuff and it would be just the Bible.
Their idea of the “early church†was, of course, what their church was like. They were actually ignorant of the facts about the early church, which is understandable as they were Bible only Christians. Consequently they assumed that the early church was just a group of Christians meeting in someone’s home or a simple building to sing songs and have a Bible study.
One of the things they definitely did NOT have was any devotion to the Mother of God. That was a late, Catholic, man made abomination! That was a much later pagan interpolation into the simple Bible based religion!
Except it wasn’t. This blog post outlines the fascinating discovery of the manuscript of the oldest hymn to the Blessed Virgin.Their idea of the “early church†was, of course, what their church was like. They were actually ignorant of the facts about the early church, which is understandable as they were Bible only Christians. Consequently they assumed that the early church was just a group of Christians meeting in someone’s home or a simple building to sing songs and have a Bible study.
One of the things they definitely did NOT have was any devotion to the Mother of God. That was a late, Catholic, man made abomination! That was a much later pagan interpolation into the simple Bible based religion!
Except it wasn’t.
Thisoutlines the fascinating discovery of the manuscript of the oldest hymn to the Blessed Virgin.
The earliest text of this hymn was found in a Christmas liturgy of the third century. It is written in Greek and dates to approximately 250 A.D.In 1917, the John Rylands Library in Manchester acquired a large panel of Egyptian papyrus including the 18 cm by 9.4 cm fragment shown at left, containing the text of this prayer in Greek.
C.H. Roberts published this document in 1938. His colleague E. Lobel, with whom he collaborated in editing the Oxyrhynchus papyri, basing his arguments on paleographic analysis, argued that the text could not possibly be older than the third century, and most probably was written between 250 and 300. This hymn thus precedes the “Hail Mary†in Christian prayer by several centuries.
Here's the text:
On the papyrus:
.ΠΟ
ΕΥCΠΑ
ΚΑΤΑΦΕ
ΘΕΟΤΟΚΕΤ
ΙΚΕCΙΑCΜΗΠΑ
ΕΙΔΗCΕΜΠΕΡΙCTAC
AΛΛΕΚΚΙÎΔΥÎΟΥ
…ΡΥCΑΙΗΜΑC
MONH
…HEΥΛΟΓ
Here it is set to music:
Turns out the hymn to the Theotokos (the God Bearer) dates from 250 AD.
What is very interesting about these comparatively recent documentary and archeological discoveries is not only what we can gather from the scraps of text themselves, but how they become part of a much larger puzzle. We can piece things together to build up a better picture of the true facts.
The hymn is clearly a prayer to the Blessed Virgin asking for her intercession and assistance in time of trouble. This shows continuity with the belief of the church down through the ages. I’m thinking “Mary Help of Christians.â€
Therefore, if this hymn to the Virgin dates from 250 AD we can deduce that it must be a written record of an earlier practice. Think about it, by the time something is written down for use in the liturgy it must already have been in use for some time. Furthermore, if this prayer is part of a document that is a copy of another document, then this also indicates that the actual practice is earlier than the manuscript itself.
In addition to this, if the hymn-prayer is included in the liturgy, then it must be something which is approved by the church and in practice on a fairly widespread basis. If it is included in the liturgy, then the term “theotokos†was not simply a theological term or a theological concept, but something which was integrated into the worshipping and devotional life of the church from the earliest days.
That argument also goes the other way: if the term “theotokos†was used in a hymn-prayer venerating the Blessed Virgin, then a high view of her significance in the plan of redemption must also have been prevalent in the theology of the early church.
You want primitive Christianity? You want to worship like the “early church†then Marian devotion had better be part of it!
Amazing! You really are clueless ... and proud of it!
And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath. Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them. But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear. For verily I say unto you, That many prophets and righteous men have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them. Hear ye therefore the parable of the sower. When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart. This is he which received seed by the way side. But he that received the seed into stony places, the same is he that heareth the word, and anon with joy receiveth it; Yet hath he not root in himself, but dureth for a while: for when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, by and by he is offended. He also that received seed among the thorns is he that heareth the word; and the care of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, choke the word, and he becometh unfruitful. But he that received seed into the good ground is he that heareth the word, and understandeth it; which also beareth fruit, and bringeth forth, some an hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty.
As you refuse to answer the question, I'm done with this conversation.
Romans 10:3
And again! ... You post passage after passage without a single clue, yet you keep showing yourself out.
bookmark
Confirmed.
And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him. Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover. And when he was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem after the custom of the feast. And when they had fulfilled the days, as they returned, the child Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem; and Joseph and his mother knew not of it. But they, supposing him to have been in the company, went a day's journey; and they sought him among their kinsfolk and acquaintance. And when they found him not, they turned back again to Jerusalem, seeking him. And it came to pass, that after three days they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them, and asking them questions. And all that heard him were astonished at his understanding and answers. And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing. And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business? And they understood not the saying which he spake unto them. And he went down with them, and came to Nazareth, and was subject unto them: but his mother kept all these sayings in her heart. And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.
You are correct sir. I mean, it says right there in the Bible, that there is no God. (Psalms 14:1B) So, yes, you are correct. Anyone can get it to say anything they want. The question I have, is Why? Why do they do this?
Amen.
3 Oux outos estin ho tektwn, ho uios Marias, adelphos de Iakwbou kai Iwse kai Iouda kai Simwnos; Kai ouk eisin ai adelphai autou wde pros emas; kai eskandalitzonto en autw.Somewhat too literally, this renders as:
(my apologies for the home-made transliteration, but with the special character glitch on FR, my Greek font isn't working)
[Is] not this is the carpenter, the son of Mary, brother of Jacob [James] and of Jose and of Judah and of Simon; and [are] not the sisters of him [Jesus] here with us; and they were shocked/angered by him.Notice that adelphos ("brother") refers back to Jesus. Position is NOT the key issue with the genitive. There is no "before" or "after." The genitive term itself is modified (inflected) to show ownership. The variation in form is what makes it genitive, not position. Position just helps you figure out who owns what.
That’s not exactly what I was trying to get at.
Keep in mind that while it sometimes happens that things have no good reason it also sometimes happens that they may.
The idea of immaculate conception might be attributed to people trying to cope with the thought that had Mary had sin then her own blood would have physically polluted Christ’s. I can even see it as having been raised to help deal with claims such as were made by Gnostics, a kind of defense of Christ’s humanity (though of course if THAT it just moves the problem from Him to His human mother).
Now, there are problem pregnancies where the placental barrier doesn’t protect the infant from the mother’s blood, or even from a twin’s as happened to my baby brother, but those are exceptions. Because the baby may well have a different blood type than the mother these can result in miscarriages. My brother barely survived the small amount of blood he got from his twin sister.
A pregnancy where all goes well sees none of that. As a consequence, it would have been impossible for Mary (here assuming that the Lord would have arranged that her pregnancy went without hiccup) to have been a source of physical contamination.
So no physical/medical need was actually required to justify the immaculate conception of Mary.
BTW, this function of the placental barrier is relatively recent medical knowledge.
That leaves the legal and spiritual grounds to argue over where immaculate conception is concerned: and I attempted to argue this too would also likely not be an issue if the spiritual nature is inherited from the father rather than the mother.
Long walks off short piers can be quite therapeutic. Since I like stuff and you like stuff, we may not like the same stuff but that's okay! Just realize theres no theme. . . FYI, I may or may not focus on Star Trek: Voyager, Captain Janeway, Seven of Nine, Once Upon a Time and Regina Mills.
I thought you'd understand.
Excellent analysis. Thanks! This should put the matter to rest and convince them all of their error.
Good job.
No human being has EVER got their blood from their mother.
In fact, till blood medical transfusions, discounting people bleeding on each other and that somehow entering the blood stream (an accident) or pregnancies that go wrong in some fashion (and not always then) each and every human being that has ever lived has only ever had their own blood supply. Unless they were an identical twin that blood is also inherently unique to them.
Human blood develops, IIRC, at around 2 weeks after conception.
Incidentally, I’ve argued that since this means that there is human blood to be shed after only 2 weeks then any Scripture believing Christian or Jew should oppose abortion any later than this ... for we are told that the life is in the blood and also that blood shed cries out to God (and in this case the “field” from which it cries out is the mother’s womb).
Metmom queries:
“So priests don’t get a call from God to go into the priesthood?â€
Response
Yes, priests do. But the call is to preach ONE truth since God established ONE Church that existed for over 300 years even before the Church fathers assembled the written word of God we call the Bible.
This explains why pre-eminent Lutheran and Episcopalian theologians who were also leading pastors, upon realizing the error of what they were preaching converted to Catholicism.
_____________________________________________________________________
Boatbums inquires:
Was there “no heresy prior to the Reformation?
Response
Yes, and the Catholic Church refuted those heresies, in the same way as it does the cluster of heresies spawned by the curse of the Reformation that has allowed each Tome, Dick, and Harry and semi-literate neighborhood First Baptist; First Emmanuel; First Christ: First XYZ pastor to stand behind a podium and display “his†or “her†own view of scripture not unlike Jeremiah Wright and David Koresh.
_____________________________________________________________________
KinsmanRedeemer writes:
“Explain the worldwide, regional, and even local contradictions in Holy Roman Catholic “churches”â€
You are mistaking local customs of worship with Catholic doctrine.
Response:
We have ONE Catholic Faith. It’s called the Credo and it is recited in every Mass in every city, village, and town, and every corner of the world.
_____________________________________________________________________
HossB86 writes:
CCC 841 ….teaches Roman Catholics and Muslims worship the “same, merciful God....”?
Response
This is precisely the kind of shallow nonsense that is the staple stuff of Bible Christians. When you take stuff like this just as you throw out Biblical quotes- out of context, it reduced serious learning to sham.
Do you have a CCC on hand?
PART ONE, Page One of the CCC “THE PROFESSION OF FAITH”
Article 9....”I Believe in the Holy Catholic Church” pg 197 You would have to start here then proceed to the following page’s................
Paragraph III “The Church is One Holy Catholic and Apostolic!”:
Title of sub section I
“THE CHURCH IS ONE” pg-214
Title of sub-section II
“THE CHURCH IS HOLY” pg-218
Title of this sub section III, is..............
“THE CHURCH IS CATHOLIC” 830-838 pg 220-222
This proceeds to............
“The Church and Non-Christians” ...........and its starts............
839 “Those who have NOT yet received the Gospel are related to the people of God in “various ways.” page 222
Then of course this elaborates from 839-845 and ends there pages 222-224.
Then this is picked up immediately with.............
“Outside the Church there in No Salvation”
Then of course this elaborates from 846-848.pages 224-225...........then to..
“Mission- a Requirement of the Church’s Catholicity” 849-856 pages 225-226..............then to..
Sub Section IV
“THE CHURCH IS APOSTOLIC” 857-862 pages 227-229
The CCC is a book of 800 pages including the index, and just like the Bible it cannot be read Sola Scriptura. It must be understood in context/content. Otherwise it becomes ones own pretext.
So then the section in question here is “The Church and Non-Christians” and to clearly understand this you much clearly understand the pre AND post sections in context with the entire CCC.
“The Church and Non-Christians”
839 “Those who have NOT yet received the Gospel are related to the people of God in “various ways.” page 222
Please explain why the NT apostles did not teach “without Mary’s intercession there is no salvation.”
Should not have Paul at least addressed such at least once in the multitudes of epistles recorded in the New Testament?
That leads me to believe you view the Holy Scriptures as incomplete, yet the NT in several locations tells us what is presented is sufficient to know God’s Gospel and message of salvation.
For a reminder...There is also a post from Daniel1212 unanswered.
“For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son: That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.”
(John 5:22-23)
Islam rejects Jesus, denies Him the honor He is due.
Therefore, in Jesus’ own words, they do not honor the Father. They are actively denying the Father the adoration and worship He is due.
Therefore, based on the law of non-contradiction, it is impossible for both Jesus and CCC 841 to be correct. The statement about Muslims, that “together with us, they adore the one, merciful God,” cannot be true (even after fully considering context), because they have rejected the Son. Else, one would have to assign error to Jesus, and that can never be.
Peace,
SR
Kinsman, I concur with your post to SR. I would like to think this will help but doubt it will have any impact on the roman catholic. This kind of breakdown using the Greek has been used in numerous discussion to no avail with the roman catholic. We've shown it regarding the security of salvation, Luke 1:28, etc,over and over again.
In one of the posting involving msgr pope he acknowledged he had discovered the Greek! What a concept to actually study the original language of the NT. I really wonder what they study in catholic seminaries .
The indoctrination is too deep in many cases.
It's our hope and prayer their minds will be opened to see the Truth.
But that is the point. Thinking that Mary's blood has anything to do with the Son of God's position and person of the Son of God is pure nonsense. Hence the verse about the flesh profits nothing. There is NO profit to ANY aspect of Mary's flesh, it's ALL about the Son of God.
This is the flaw in all the religious communities devolved from Protestantism. Continually grasping to recreate a form of biblical Christianity, using only their wits, whilst conjecturing that the Christians that came before them had it all wrong and they themselves have it all right. Joseph Smith took this reconstructionism to an extreme.
Since Reconstructionism and Reformation both lack real, genuine, apostles, and both deny historical Orthodox Christianity, they have no root, they have no legitimacy. They are each generation's best attempt to create a religion from the Bible with their own era's accepted manuscripts, translations, and cultural biases. They are separated from the one holy catholic apostolic church, some by choice, and some by accident.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.