The oldest known Marian prayer is from Egypt

As we pray for the success of Pope Francis’ trip to Egypt this weekend, a perfect prayer to use is the oldest known Marian prayer, which in fact, traces back to the pope’s host country.

The oldest known Marian prayer is found on an ancient Egyptian papyrus dating from around the year 250. Today known in the Church as the Sub tuum praesidium, the prayer is believed to have been part of the Coptic Vespers liturgy during the Christmas season.

The original prayer was written in Greek and according to Roseanne Sullivan, “The prayer is addressed to Our Lady using the Greek word Θεοτόκος, which is an adjectival form of Θεοφόρος (Theotokos, or God-bearer) and is more properly translated as ‘she whose offspring is God.'” This helps to prove that the early Christians were already familiar with the word “Theotokos” well before the Third Ecumenical Council at Ephesus ratified its usage.

Below can be found the original Greek text from the papyrus, along with an English translation as listed on the New Liturgical Movement website:

Beneath your compassion,
We take refuge, O Mother of God:
do not despise our petitions in time of trouble:
but rescue us from dangers,
only pure, only blessed one.

Several centuries later a Latin prayer was developed and is more widely known in the Roman Catholic Church:

The prayer is currently part of the Byzantine, Roman and Ambrosian rites in the Catholic Church and is used specifically as a Marian antiphon after the conclusion of Compline outside of Lent (in the older form of the Roman breviary). It is also a common prayer that has stood the test of time and is a favorite of many Christians, and is the root of the popular devotional prayer, the Memorare.

Rather than seven long paragraphs to explain why the verse doesn't say what it says, I'll go with the idea that Jesus said what he meant: John the Baptist was the greatest born of woman.

Quoting a verse out of context for polemical purposes and understanding what it means in context are two different things. Sometimes understanding God's word requires us to put in some extra paragraphs in order to consider context and avoid eisegesis--Paul took a whole chapter to exegete Genesis 15:6 in Romans 4, and every Protestant pastor I know has a library of commentaries. It does not illuminate what Jesus "meant" to jump down to verse 11 and quote "John the Baptist was the greatest born of woman" out of context as implying John's superiority to Mary without considering what "born of woman" means in context, what the subsequent contrast with "the least in the kingdom of heaven" means, and whether Mary should be classified as "born among women" or among those in the "kingdom of heaven" who are superior to John. This last point is the key issue, and it is not addressed by avoiding the context of the verse.

Rather than five paragraphs to explain why the verse doesn't say what it says, I'll go with the idea that Jesus said what he meant: a focus on Mary is misguided. BTW, I never said that Mary wasn't blessed - Scripture clearly said she was. Jesus' response equates Mary and those who follow God's Word. Apparently, no special status for Mary.

Except the verse doesn't say "a focus on Mary is misguided", nor does it say "everyone who follows God's word has the same status". Rather, it indicates that blessing someone merely because of physical kinship is misguided when hearing and obeying God's word is what counts. And while everyone who obeys God's word may be blessed in some sense, it is difficult to read this verse as an exercise in "Mariological restraint" unless one reads the second half of the verse as denying that Mary is blessed. But this is clearly not what the verse means, for when the second half of the verse is compared with Luke 1, the implication is that Mary is blessed because she did hear the word of God and obey it. And it is difficult to read the rest of Luke 1 and conclude that everyone is *as* blessed as Mary--everyone is not saluted by an angel with the title "full of grace"; everyone is not welcomed by the Holy Spirit filling everyone in the room to break out in prophecies and songs when they walk in and say hello. You are not denying Mary is blessed, but you're not explaining how to harmonize your reading of this verse as implying equal blessedness of all believers with Luke 1's portrayal of Mary as the most blessed among women--if she is blessed among women, by definition, all other women are not as blessed as her. Moreoever, Jesus clearly teaches that some will receive greater rewards in the kingdom of heaven in places such as the Parable of the Sowers and the Parable of the Talents, among others, so the conclusion that everyone is equally blessed isn't consistent with the rest of Scripture, either.

While Protestants might consider tradition, few will consider it as inspired as they would Scripture. Only a few Protestants find the Mariology tradition compelling. Using Acts 1:14 to claim that Mary is a co-founder of the Church seems a stretch. The focus of Acts is on the surviving Apostles (with the later inclusion of Paul). Mary's listing in Acts 1:14 doesn't give her any prominent role other than being there with the other women and Jesus' brothers and praying with the Apostles.

The Apostles only taught by oral tradition for most of the first two decades of the church, exercising the binding and loosing authority Jesus gave them; and towards the tail end of that time-frame, Paul obligated Christians to follow both oral tradition and Scripture in 2 Thessalonians 2:15. Lutheranism and Anglicanism are not insignificant elements of Protestantism, and they have historically maintained elements of Catholic Mariology (speaking historically and not of their liberalized offshoots in recent years); and even Calvinists have been divided on Mariology since Bullinger rejected Calvin's overreaction against Catholic Mariology as un-Biblical. Mary's listing in Acts 1:14 gives her a role in praying for Pentecost, which was the founding of the church; she does not need to be the only one there to be rightly called a co-founder.

Quoting a verse out of context for polemical purposes and understanding what it means in context are two different things.

As is focusing on the context to understand what is being said and focusing on the context to explain away an unsettling conclusion. The former is just a theological version of "and who is my neighbor?"

Sometimes understanding God's word requires us to put in some extra paragraphs in order to consider context and avoid eisegesis

Yes and sometimes the meaning is right there. Eisegesis is the theological version of a confirmation bias - determining the conclusion ahead of time and forcing evidence to fit. As discussed later, forcing the Catholic view of Luke 1 into all other verses is exactly that (see below).

Except the verse doesn't say "a focus on Mary is misguided", nor does it say "everyone who follows God's word has the same status".

Of course, Jesus didn't say that but these are valid paraphrases of what he was saying.

Rather, it indicates that blessing someone merely because of physical kinship is misguided when hearing and obeying God's word is what counts.

I could accept that but it's not me who is trying to extoll Mary beyond where Scripture clearly goes.

Mary is "blessed among all women" or "favored among all women" because she is the only woman in history who will give birth to the Incarnate God. That is the greatest honor that can be given to a human woman.

everyone is not saluted by an angel with the title "full of grace"

It is not even clear that Luke 1:28 says that. It appears that Jerome added that to the Vulgate. The original Greek manuscripts do not have that phrase in Luke (but does have in John 1:14 referring to Jesus and Acts 6:8 referring to Stephen). The whole discussion of "full of grace" is based on phrase that might not even appear in the original texts.

everyone is not welcomed by the Holy Spirit filling everyone in the room to break out in prophecies and songs when they walk in and say hello.

Was that in response to Mary's presence or the presence of Jesus in Mary's womb? Logically, who is going to get the greater response? The mother of the long-awaited Messiah or the Messiah Himself? Do you have an example of such behavior when the embryonic Jesus wasn't present?

The forcing the Catholic interpretation of Luke 1 on other verses is a perfect example of eisegesis. If these verses in Luke 1 were indisputable as to their meaning, then that would be fine but there are other plausible explanations of these verses that don't align with Mariology.

Lutheranism and Anglicanism are not insignificant elements of Protestantism, and they have historically maintained elements of Catholic Mariology (speaking historically and not of their liberalized offshoots in recent years);

Don't blur the distinctions. Protestant respect for Mary is much different than the historical Catholic view. What major Protestant group prays to Mary?

Matthew 11:11: ”As is focusing on the context to understand what is being said and focusing on the context to explain away an unsettling conclusion.” Which is why I focused on the context first to understand and explicate what was being said before attempting any application to Mariological debates; but you complained this was “long” (which I’ll grant it was, as I myself observed at the time). You haven’t refuted my analysis of the context and what it implies about the contrast between those “born of women” and those in the “kingdom of God”, nor have you ventured your own alternative analysis. You’ve instead bypassed discussing the context, quoted half the verse without illuminating how it relates to the other half, left undefined what “born of women” vs. those in the “kingdom of God” might mean and how those categories might apply to Mary vis-à-vis John, and asserted without supporting evidence that “the meaning is right there”. Moreover, as I indicated earlier in the discussion, reading the first half of the verse at face value out of context would imply that Jesus as one “born of women” would also be less than John, which obviously isn’t what the Lord meant to imply. You haven’t presented me with any argument supporting an “unsettling conclusion” that I feel compelled to explain away. The only way you’re going to do that is by showing that my reading of the verse isn’t supported by the text or context.

Luke 11:27-28: “Of course, Jesus didn't say that but these are valid paraphrases of what he was saying.”: No, that’s an application of your interpretation of the verse, it’s not a paraphrase. “I could accept that but it's not me who is trying to extoll Mary beyond where Scripture clearly goes.” Nor am I: Luke has already told us Mary is “blessed” back in Chapter 1, where we also saw her hearing the word of God and obeying it; therefore, we can assume Jesus and Luke are not contradicting themselves here, and we can deduce from what Jesus says here that Mary is blessed because she did keep the word of God and obey it. So I don’t see how this becomes as admonition to Mariological restraint without an eisegesis that imports arguments which did not arise until many centuries later.

Luke 1: “Mary is "blessed among all women" or "favored among all women" because she is the only woman in history who will give birth to the Incarnate God. That is the greatest honor that can be given to a human woman.” That is indeed a great honor, but there are several problems with reading that as what the text indicates is the rationale for her favor and blessedness: 1) You’re conflating what the angel says before Mary is pregnant with what Elizabeth says after she becomes pregnant: she is already “full of grace”/”favored” before she becomes pregnant. 2) You’re overlooking the OT allusions in this passage and the implications of the fact that the fruit of Mary’s womb is blessed, when everyone else’s womb since Eve has been cursed by the curse laid down in Genesis 3. 3) Elizabeth explicitly gives an entirely different reason why Mary is blessed: “Blessed is she who has believed that what the Lord said to her will be accomplished.” (1:45) “It is not even clear that Luke 1:28 says that. It appears that Jerome added that to the Vulgate. The original Greek manuscripts do not have that phrase in Luke (but does have in John 1:14 referring to Jesus and Acts 6:8 referring to Stephen). The whole discussion of "full of grace" is based on phrase that might not even appear in the original texts.” No, this is factually incorrect, and it sounds like you are confusing the “full of grace” phrase with a separate textual issue. You can see a chart summarizing the variations in Luke 1:28 in ancient manuscripts here. All variations have κεχαριτωμένη , which means “full of grace” in the sense of being “favored”. There is some variation in ancient manuscripts, but it does not involve this part of the verse. Rather, it involves the fact that the Vulgate and some manuscripts the Vulgate was drawing from also include “Blessed are you among women!” at the end of this verse as well as later in the chapter, while other manuscripts omit that phrase from this verse but include it later. This was an issue Jerome inherited from earlier manuscripts, not one he introduced. Was that in response to Mary's presence or the presence of Jesus in Mary's womb? Logically, who is going to get the greater response? The mother of the long-awaited Messiah or the Messiah Himself? Do you have an example of such behavior when the embryonic Jesus wasn't present? The text says (twice) that it was in response to Mary’s voice, and the Holy Spirit’s response through Elizabeth focuses on Mary. Of course Jesus is infinitely more important than Mary, but that is not what the Holy Spirit and Luke are emphasizing in these verses. The forcing the Catholic interpretation of Luke 1 on other verses is a perfect example of eisegesis. If these verses in Luke 1 were indisputable as to their meaning, then that would be fine but there are other plausible explanations of these verses that don't align with Mariology. You here seem to equate eisegesis with you having a different plausible reading than someone else, which is not what eisegesis means. But your reading isn’t plausible for multiple reasons, including those I list above.

Don't blur the distinctions. Protestant respect for Mary is much different than the historical Catholic view. What major Protestant group prays to Mary? I distinctly named Lutherans, Anglicans, and Calvinists, for I was not just talking about praying to Mary (by which Catholics mean asking Mary to pray for us to God, not praying to her as if she were God). But to start with Luther himself, his own thought was inconsistent on praying to Mary. In some of his writings he taught “that one should pray to Mary, so God would give and do, through her will, what we ask. But, he adds, it is God's work alone”; and he prayed to Mary in his Magnificat: “We pray God to give us a right understanding of this Magnificat, an understanding that consists not merely in brilliant words, but I glowing life in body and soul. May Christ grant us this through the intercession and for the sake of His dear Mother Mary.” At other times Luther expressed concern that some who prayed to Mary might lose sight of Christ’s role as mediator, and he discouraged praying the last third of the Hail Mary while recommending the first two-thirds. In general, he did not seem to be opposed to praying to Mary in principle, his concern was more about potential problems in practice. Later Lutheran confessions tended to move away from Luther’s own views on this towards a more anti-Catholic position, though the Augsburg Confession maintained the doctrine of the intercession of the saints. For more recent Catholic-Lutheran discussions, see The One Mediator, the Saints, and Mary: Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue VIII. Contemporary Lutheran theologian Robert Jenson advocates praying to Mary and is one of a growing number of Protestants in multiple denominations open to Marian devotion.

On recent Catholic-Anglican discussions on this topic, see the joint Catholic-Anglican consensus statement Mary: Grace and Hope in Christ, which stated on the topic of Marian prayer, “The Scriptures teach that “there is one mediator between God and humankind, Christ Jesus, himself human, who gave himself as a ransom for all” (1 Timothy 2:5-6). As noted earlier, on the basis of this teaching “we reject any interpretation of the role of Mary which obscures this affirmation” (Authority II 30). It is also true, however, that all ministries of the Church, especially those of Word and sacrament, mediate the grace of God through human beings. These ministries do not compete with the unique mediation of Christ, but rather serve it and have their source within it. In particular, the prayer of the Church does not stand alongside or in place of the intercession of Christ, but is made through him, our Advocate and Mediator (cf. Romans 8:34, Hebrews 7:25, 12:24, 1 John 2:1). It finds both its possibility and practice in and through the Holy Spirit, the other Advocate sent according to Christ’s promise (cf. John 14:16-17). Hence asking our brothers and sisters, on earth and in heaven, to pray for us, does not contest the unique mediatory work of Christ, but is rather a means by which, in and through the Spirit, its power may be displayed. . . The Scriptures invite Christians to ask their brothers and sisters to pray for them, in and through Christ (cf. James 5:13-15). Those who are now ‘with Christ’, untrammelled by sin, share the unceasing prayer and praise which characterizes the life of heaven (e.g. Revelation 5:9-14, 7:9-12, 8:3-4). In the light of these testimonies, many Christians have found that requests for assistance in prayer can rightly and effectively be made to those members of the communion of saints distinguished by their holy living (cf. James 5:16-18). It is in this sense that we affirm that asking the saints to pray for us is not to be excluded as unscriptural, though it is not directly taught by the Scriptures to be a required element of life in Christ. Further, we agree that the way such assistance is sought must not obscure believers’ direct access to God our heavenly Father, who delights to give good gifts to his children (Matthew 7:11). When, in the Spirit and through Christ, believers address their prayers to God, they are assisted by the prayers of other believers, especially of those who are truly alive in Christ and freed from sin. We note that liturgical forms of prayer are addressed to God: they do not address prayer ‘to’ the saints, but rather ask them to ‘pray for us’. However, in this and other instances, any concept of invocation which blurs the trinitarian economy of grace and hope is to be rejected, as not consonant with Scripture or the ancient common traditions.”

Some Presbyterians and United Methodists have echoed Jenson’s call to pray to Mary. I could probably dig up examples from other denominations (including the Eastern churches, who are not Protestant but are relevant to the topic), but that is sufficient to make the point.

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.

The "Sub tuum praesidium" was originally used in an ancient Coptic liturgy