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!
I don't go back to the biblical languages because I don't know them, some Latin, useless, when it's brought into the conversation correctly can shed some illumination on the subject. Authority versus the nature as God (of Jesus) is what I make of this.
No the woman didn't know Jesus, and I have thought about the living water which I think is the Holy Spirit. Anyway, Jesus outright told her he was the one they awaited, the Messiah, which he does nowhere else in the NT. People had to figure it out for themselves, and Peter was the first to say that he was the Messiah, although "flesh and blood" didn't make Peter see that. I don't remember the Holy Spirit being mentioned but it must have been through the third Person of the Trinity.
Let's just jump ahead to this:
Elizabeth calls Mary "mother of my lord
I guess I miss the subtleties which turn out to be everything. I never meant to imply that Elizabeth's words claimed or implied that Mary was the Mother of God. That is how I tried to interpret it much later myself when my daughter wanted to know, when I was regularly praying the Rosary, no longer do, and I would say "Holy Mary, Mother of God".
She knows little to nothing about the faith or NT but she did catch that. I explained it just like I tried to heretofore, guess I failed at making the point or my point wasn't exact enough for people. A shame. Is God so hard on us that he expects us to understand some things beyond our understanding as if the more we know about the bible, ancient languages, history, that somehow that gives us a leg up to greater holiness or salvation itself? That would be absurd. Salvation isn't gained by knowledge but by very simple faith for some.
I don't think God is against knowledge or higher learning either, but it isn't meant for all and is misused by some or used to pull a power trip or control mechanism by some. I think you shared your knowledge in the proper spirit.
So now I'm a heretic. You would not know the full extent of what would be to others, heretical, but I'm not giving others ammunition to crucify me with. My intention was to find something I hold as true in the Catholic and Orthodox church and seem to have failed miserably.
Theotokos came later but is the same thing Elizabeth said Mother of her Lord, the Messiah for you and probably correct. She would have understood and awaited the Messiah.
I truly wish we could rejoice in the truths we hold in common, and resolve our differences in amicable conversation
Even if you go into a conversation meaning nothing but being totally benign, it has seldom, if ever, ended up that way for me. Catholics seem to be incapable of self scrutiny about their faith but affirm dogma to the bitter end. They can't give an inch. And neither can Protestants. Did you see how relentlessly they came after the OP? Post after post, like Mary is some kind of demon. You say we should seek and find common ground (my understanding of what you said). I agree but it isn't going to happen.
Now I took your post in a very benign, spirit of helpfulness or greater clarification. Then I look at your profile and see you are some version of Calvinist, historically millenialism, don't know what that means. Calvinist I associate with Presbyterian, various flavors, and now it's also Southern Baptist, various flavors. I really don't care. I don't have anything in particular against them. I've not had real good luck with ones I've known but don't hold it against them all.
I think we should find some common ground in love, appreciation of honor for Mary. If you don't want to pray to her. Fine. If you don't want to sing a hymn to her, don't sing it, even in church. Very simple. How can anyone not love Mary of the bible? She started out to be the same Mary for Catholics and Orthodox. The masses, grass roots, not the hierarchy kind of got carried away with it. Then the hierarchy comes in and gives a definition not found in scripture, a lot evidently wasn't in scripture. But when they become dogmas carrying a curse "if any man" (I assume that means any believers who understand what they are saying like a dissenter like Luther) disagreeing with it, an anathema comes down on them.
The Council of Trent has I'm not sure, close to 100 anathemas which Catholics have to believe or they are under a curse! The church has never resinded any of it. It's beginning to look like another gospel to me, the preaching of any other Paul pronounced with an anathema if anyone preached any other gospel than what he did. So who is wrong and who is right?
The new catechism gives people the option of conscience. I'm not sure just how much leeway that gives anybody, but if I in good conscience have disagreement, I am allowed that. But it doesn't make sense either because I wouldn't interpret it to mean that I made a mistake and want to get an abortion; I would not carry it to that extent.
The irony is that any Catholic can believe almost anything, and if they keep their mouth shut about it or not, they are tolerated to remain in the church doing all sorts of things and spreading all sorts of untruths. I shouldn't have gone this far with it. People can believe what they want so long as they don't trample on me and my right to believe what I struggle mightily to understand.
Now no criticism is intended on posting what looks like a valid archaeological finding about an early hymn to Mary dated about 250 CE I guess we are supposed to use now. I won't. 250 AD. I like that better. Obviously people started saying or singing the hymn some time before that but how long, nobody knows.
There are so many faces of Mary it gets totally confusing. Some titles are not true. Finally the church came down on Medjugorje which is long overdue, declaring the place a place of prayer but the seers are under the penalty of excommunication if they promulgate any more messages. How many have they led astray? Millions. Some of my friends, now dead, lived and swore by Medjugorje Not sure if they (the seers) can talk among themselves, not to tourists, what? There are other ones that I find questionable. It's just a part of what drove me away from church dogma and back to the Mary of the bible, self preservation of my soul from abuse and any more lies, even by priests who I know in my heart meant well but were getting carried away to a frightening extent themselves. And some few were quietly trying to weather the storm, and I know they were troubled by all that was going on around them but powerless to do anything about it.
One young priest I was frightened for his soul for months when he said God doesn't punish in this life. That's one belief in the Council of Trent that carries an anathema. The priest seemed to be doing fine, so I let it go, became a bishop faster and younger than most, and lost track of him.
The only time the church was in total agreement was on the day of Pentecost. They all were of one accord. It didn't last very long, did it? Jesus told us we would turn against one another in so many words.
We can start toward reconciliation by trying to be more accepting of one another wherever they are in their understanding of the faith and being more tolerant. Protestants need to quit foaming at the mouth any time a Catholic mentions Mary even though the understanding is different. The only ones de fide are the Assumption and Immaculate Conception but Catholics are not bound to believe any private revelation about any form of Mary or anything else, unless the church approves it.
It's a mess now, and I'd better try to edit it, sorry it's way too long and probably not what you or anybody wanted to hear. Just don't read it then. Ignore it.
Godspeed to all.
People should care about keeping the Messiah's commandments. That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;) That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ. And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full. This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth: But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us. My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him. He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked. Brethren, I write no new commandment unto you, but an old commandment which ye had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word which ye have heard from the beginning. Again, a new commandment I write unto you, which thing is true in him and in you: because the darkness is past, and the true light now shineth. He that saith he is in the light, and hateth his brother, is in darkness even until now. He that loveth his brother abideth in the light, and there is none occasion of stumbling in him. But he that hateth his brother is in darkness, and walketh in darkness, and knoweth not whither he goeth, because that darkness hath blinded his eyes.
First John, Catholic chapter one in its entirety, Catholic chapter two, Protestant verses one to eleven,
as authorized, but not authored, by King James
boldness mine
Only if you ignore the passages in the Bible that state Jesus had brothers and sisters.
Maybe you are interpreting those verses differently than I am. No one keeps the commandments perfectly. If keeping the commandments is what you think will get you into Heaven, so be it. You better never make a mistake. I do not agree with that. Again, perhaps we will have an eternal disagreement on that. I am OK with that. You are free to believe whatever you like. I may not agree with your interpretation, but you can think whatever you like.
When will you understand that Mary had no other children. She was a perpetual virgin and remained so as a mother to Christ.
How many times have was told you that the word “brother” in the Bible is a word used as brethren. They were not what you would call blood-brothers. Probably cousins.
Families lived together sharing a well and a fire pit. Perhaps Mary and Joseph shared a living space in a group with the real mother of James and Jude......thus they were called brethren.
:-)
When? Never. You will simply have to live with that. Mary was a sinner, and had other children. You may not agree. So be it. I can live with that. I believed that in a previous life. I don't now, but I am OK with it. Now, Heaven or Hell. That is important. I got my fire insurance paid up.
**Mary was a sinner, and had other children. **
In error....so much for truth for Protestants.
Gee ...ya think it may have been because none of them were there at the cross with her??? Only the Apostle John had the bravery to show up!
And how many times have you been told that there is a word for cousins in the Greek.....but it is not used in relation to Jesus' brothers or sisters.
With the catholic insistence on Mary remaining a virgin, they are calling Paul a liar when he notes in Galatians 1 that he met with James, brother of Jesus. The Greek indicates this was indeed the brother of Jesus.
I'll take Paul's word on this as he met the man.
In the other passages in Matthew, Mark and Luke the context of the passage clearly indicates Jesus had brothers and sisters.
Sorry, meant to include you on the post.
I’ll take Jesus’ word any day.
He gave his mother to the apostle, John, and to all mankind.
HaHaHaHa...Doesn't matter how many times you say it, it will still be wrong...
How many times have YOU been told there is already a word in the scriptures for cousin...
Luk_1:36 And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.
συγγενηÌÏ‚
suggenēs
soong-ghen-ace'
From G4862 and G1085; a relative (by blood); by extension a fellow countryman: - cousin, kin (-sfolk, -sman).
HaHaHa...
Obviously you don't...
This kind of blog stuff is not worth a penny. Apparently, with a wave of the hand you dismiss the works of renowned Catholic theologians after whom colleges and universities have been named the world over, and just as well you dismiss the reason why pre-eminent Protestant an Lutheran theologians, who after a lifetime of scholarship and student converted to Catholicism. Those left stranded in the pews are low-information Bible Christian who throw snippets of scripture from here and there and borrow from fundamentalist blogs that have a level of research that is so shallow as to be embarrassing.
What "truth" is it you mean? You just got done saying words like probably and might have and maybe. You - nor anyone else KNOWS for sure that Mary was a perpetual virgin and never had sexual relations with her husband Joseph. You don't KNOW that those the Bible calls Jesus' brothers and sisters weren't his half siblings, do you? All you have is late date declarations from your church magesterium that say so and they have next to nothing with which to base it on other than they say it is so so it must be so. Where do Catholics get off accusing "Protestants" of lying about such things when they don't base their own beliefs on facts?
Here's a newsflash...if the Bible taught these things about Mary that Catholics scream up and down are the truths, I and probably most all Christians would accept them, too. But it doesn't. If these dogmas were so essential for the Christian faith, God would have included them in Scripture. He didn't. Just might be a reason for that.
You might want to reread that passage. The Greek indicates He gave her to only John. No indication of mankind in the passage at all. I know it won’t stop you from believing the rcc doctrine but it’s incorrect.
What is shallow is your repetitive schtick that foolishly concludes that all the “smart” people are Catholics. It’s getting shop worn and stale...not to mention, WRONG.
"Jesus outright told her he was the one they awaited, the Messiah, which he does nowhere else in the NT."
John 14, speaking to Phillip and the others: John 14:5 and following:
5Thomas said to him, Lord, we don’t know where you are going, so how can we know the way?6Jesus answered, I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7If you really know me, you will knowb my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.
8Philip said, Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.
9Jesus answered: Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, Show us the Father? 10Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. 11Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the works themselves. 12Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. 13And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.
I am at a loss to see how ANYONE, even a catholic, can read that passage and asseret that Jesus was not spelling it out for His Disicples that HE IS I AM, all of I AM that the Disciples could see in their current limitations.
BUT, thanks be to God, John writes later that whe Jesus appears, we shall see Him as He really is, because when we see Him we shall be LIKE HIM, dimensionally able to see so much more of I AM as with us in/as Jesus.
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.