Replies

The history, therefore, of the belief which this festival was instituted to commemorate is as follows: It was first taught in the 3rd or 4th century as part of the Gnostic legend of St. Mary’s death, and it was regarded by the church as a Gnostic and Collyridian fable down to the end of the 5th century.

Bzzt. Stop right there.

Cute of the author to mix his own little speculations in here. First of all, was it really a "Gnostic legend"? Was there an early Church Father who said..."The Gnostics have this legend about the Virgin Mary which we deny...."? Nope. The author or the scholars he cites BELIEVES it was Gnostic, but I have yet to see any positive evidence for making that sweeping claim.

And about this nonsense "it was regarded by the church as a Gnostic and Collyridian fable"...Ok, then prove it. Find me one ancient source that says so. I have never ever in my own reading on this come upon any Church Father who condemns this idea as either Gnostic or Collyridian. Again, this is modern speculation about the origins of the idea superimposed on the relative silence of the Fathers.

Another problem....the Transitus Mariae manuscript tradition is older than the author seems to realize. The texts go back to the 3rd century.

I'll check out the fact of Gelasius on the Transitus--but looking at the Latin it explicitly says the book is apocryphal and DOES NOT SAY the idea is heretical. Even a declaration of heresy against the book DOES NOT mean everything in it is heretical. It just means that SOMETHING in the BOOK is heretical. Suppose I took the Gospel of Mark and added a line "Christ is not the son of God." That would make the whole version heretical, even though there's only one wrong thing in it. It does NOT mean, though, that all of the other stuff in Mark is not authentic.

Another line in the author I'd also like to call out:

At least a score of Transitus accounts are extant, in Coptic, Greek, Latin, Syriac, Arabic, Ethiopic, and Armenian. Not all are prototypes, for many are simply variations on more ancient models (Juniper Carol, O.F.M. ed., Mariology, Vol. II (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1957), p. 144).

Really? A heretical Gnostic idea spread this fast across all the various Churches spread all over the world--was translated into all these languages--and NO ONE saw fit to complain about it until the Reformation? No one said hey wait a second here? The Ethiopians, the Syrians, the Copts, the Armenians just went along with the idea? Not even any Church councils to resolve the issue? Just widespread acceptance?

Here's the main point. There is silence on the question of the Assumption for a few hundred years. Epiphanius even says he doesn't know what happened. Then basically all the Churches proclaim the idea. No one brands it--the idea, not the book!--as heretical. It's widely accepted and translated. Now, is it easier to assume here that we have

A) a heretical idea that was suddenly accepted

B) an orthodox idea that was suddenly popularized?

I'm going with B.