The Oldest Hymn to Mary (early christian worship)

One of the things that maddens and amuses me about Protestants is something called â€œprimitivismâ€. Iâ€™ve written about it here. â€œPrimitivismâ€ is the ambition to return the church to the simplest form as it was in the â€œearly 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 â€œman 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 â€œearly churchâ€ 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 someoneâ€™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 wasnâ€™t. This blog post outlines the fascinating discovery of the manuscript of the oldest hymn to the Blessed Virgin.Their idea of the â€œearly churchâ€ 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 someoneâ€™s home or a simple building to sing songs and have a Bible study.

On the papyrus:
.Î ÎŸ
Î•Î¥CÎ Î‘
ÎšÎ‘Î¤Î‘Î¦Î•
Î˜Î•ÎŸÎ¤ÎŸÎšÎ•Î¤
Î™ÎšÎ•CÎ™Î‘CÎœÎ—Î Î‘
Î•Î™Î”Î—CÎ•ÎœÎ Î•Î¡Î™CTAC
AÎ›Î›Î•ÎšÎšÎ™ÎÎ”Î¥ÎÎŸÎ¥
…Î¡Î¥CÎ‘Î™Î—ÎœÎ‘C
MONH
…HEÎ¥Î›ÎŸÎ“

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. Iâ€™m thinking â€œMary 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 â€œtheotokosâ€ 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 â€œtheotokosâ€ 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 â€œearly churchâ€ then Marian devotion had better be part of it!

As noted, the Greeks who maintain this gospel is not a mere translation but the actual words of Jesus DO read the use of "brother" to mean that the brothers are literally sons of the same father, since had he been speaking in Greek, he could have used the word "anepsos."

There was no need to use "anepsos" because the men and women listed are not cousins. As for the "sons of the same father" theory, "adelphos" etymologically means one who was in the same womb as another, a maternal connectedness that made one a brother or sister, which connection was entirely independent of who the father was.

But in any event, as Jesus is the focal point of this series of possessives in Mark 6:3, it is not surprising that someone rolling out such a series of possessives might opt for economy and drop excessively repetitive definite articles. So many nouns, so little time. :) It doesn't change the sense of the passage at all.

For example, in English, if I say "There goes John, the son of Jane, and brother of Tom, Dick and Harry," all I have done is chosen a fairly efficient style to express the family grouping. I have not in any way implied John and his brothers had two different fathers. My use of the definite article ("the") has absolutely no impact on that question. It is irrelevant.

BTW, I notice your translation has a minor error:

THE carpenter, THE son of Mary, (no "the") brother of Jacob and Jose and Juda and Simon; and are not sisters of him here with us?

The error is that "sisters" does indeed have the definite article, so reads as "are not THE sisters of him here with us?" But it is not a big deal, for the same reason the non-use of the definite article with "brother" is not a big deal. In this passage, the articles (or lack of them) do not significantly impact the core issue of the possessive genitive. The plain meaning of the text is that the townsfolk believed that Jesus was truly the brother of each man listed, and of some unnamed sisters.

And it is important to remember why they were so "scandalized" by this apparently normal family of Jesus. Jesus came teaching with authority, accompanied by claims of miracles. The townsfolk could not imagine someone whose family was so well known to them, and so ordinary, would suddenly have such wisdom and power. It appears they were very much befuddled by it, and couldn't accept it. Why? Because Jesus was their homeboy. They knew their place in the world. Why didn't He?

But of course the townspeople who knew Jesus from childhood could have been wrong. Happily, this is not the only Biblical testimony to Jesus' biological family:

Then came to him his mother and his brethren, and could not come at him for the press.
(Luke 8:19)

What is interesting here is that Luke is a strong, natural writer of the Greek. Here there can be no doubt whether he was secretly thinking of a more ambiguous Hebrew word. He was not. He said "brother" because that is exactly what he meant. Furthermore, in this passage, the definite article is present for both "mother" and "brethren," and the genitive inflection is on "him," so here, he "owns" them as mother and brothers. Between the two passages we have the possessive running in both directions.

When Jesus was 12, and was believed to be among his "kinfolk," where are his siblings? According to your translation, he has at least six younger siblings.

Indeed, but that is a problem for both theories, is it not? If Joseph already had children from a previous marriage, they would already be present in the prolonged story of the nativity, would they not? Where are they? Nowhere.

Whereas if Jesus is the sole focus of the very brief story about Joseph and Mary temporarily losing Him at the Temple, then why would the writer bother mentioning Jesus' younger siblings? Nothing but a stylistically appropriate editorial decision.

When Mary goes to live with John, where are his siblings?

Somewhere. We know from Mark and Luke they were there. If they were not yet believers, they may have simply blended into the unbelieving crowds when Jesus died, in fear of their own lives for their connection to Jesus. As Jesus is the eldest, it remains to Him to ensure Mary is cared for after He dies, and this He accomplishes with John.

When the crowds say that they know his "brothers" and "sisters"

I have no idea how you think this strengthens your case. Perhaps I am missing something, but the crowd saying they know His brothers and sisters tends to support that He really had brothers and sisters. Occam's Razor. Follow the simplest path that explains all the facts. Jesus really had biological brothers and sisters.

Nevertheless, I appreciate your thoughtful response.

Peace,

SR

You cannot say that God calls people of 1001 different believers to be pastors in as much Protestant and Episcopalian denominations. Correct, and thus it is an absolutely invalid argument. For what you are arguing is that Protestantism cannot be valid since we see such under that tent, yet no one i know here is arguing for whatever RCs put under that tent. I

Nor can you argue that since SS sees division then it cannot be valid, as so does the RC alternative where it really counts.

Instead the ones i see you dealing with are not contending for "Protestantism," nor for a specific church, but for an evangelical faith and core truths thereof.

Both models for ascertaining what is Truth, and what is of God see divisions as well as limited degrees of unity, mostly on paper when it comes to RCs. The question is which one is Scriptural, ascertaining what is of God and what is Truth based upon Scriptural substantiation, or by faith in Rome under the the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility? Want to answer that.

He is One Truth, and itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s the ONE-truth mandate that was given to Peter and his successors to go forth and teach this ONE truth through ONE Church.

Why do you simply keep repeating refuted parroted propaganda ? Is this what Rome fosters, besides liberalism?

The Catholic Church existed BEFORE the Bible.

Wrong, as the church of Rome is basically an invisible church in Scripture . In addition, even if it did then that is no more an argument for following Rome in her other judgments then it was for following the historical magisterium who sat in the seat of Moses, and which existed BEFORE the Church and complete Bible, and to whom Christ required general submission to.

. The books in the Bible were assembled in AD 384, by the Catholic Church and through Divine inspiration.

Again, why do you simply keep repeating refuted parroted propaganda ? Does it prevent RCs from being disturbed by refutation?

Rome had no infallible, indisputable canon until after Luther died, and doubts and disagreements continued down thru th centuries and right into Trent. And Luther had substantial RC scholarly support for his dissent, and non-binding canon, while actually included the deutros in his Bible, separately as per ancient custom.

If you doubt, that Divine inspiration guided the Church that selected the books in the Bible and assembled them in the order we find them, then you have little choice but to toss out the Bible.

Rome does not even claim Divine inspiration for her "infallible" decrees, while your logic likewise applies to the Jews who gave us most of Scripture, and upon substantiation of which Truth the church established its claims.

The rest is more of your reiterated but refuted ranting, and sophist soliloquy. No reason to waste more time with one whose recourse is to rely on propaganda and the unScriptural premise that conversions of intellectuals best indicates Truth. Which is a case for atheism. Go read my prior post for a change if you want a response.

Rather, you find a flotsam and jetsam of unadulterated rubbish from the David Koresh and Jim Joes and Joel Osteens of this world right down to your illiterate corner street pastor who spouts off his or her own interpretation to mainly low-information high school dropouts.

You mean like these "pillars of virtue" in the roman catholic cult??

Pope Stephen VI (896â€“897), who had his predecessor Pope Formosus exhumed, tried, de-fingered, briefly reburied, and thrown in the Tiber.[1]

Pope John XII (955â€“964), who gave land to a mistress, murdered several people, and was killed by a man who caught him in bed with his wife.

Pope Benedict IX (1032â€“1044, 1045, 1047â€“1048), who "sold" the Papacy

Pope Boniface VIII (1294â€“1303), who is lampooned in Dante's Divine Comedy

Pope Urban VI (1378â€“1389), who complained that he did not hear enough screaming when Cardinals who had conspired against him were tortured.[2]

Pope Alexander VI (1492â€“1503), a Borgia, who was guilty of nepotism and whose unattended corpse swelled until it could barely fit in a coffin.[3]

Pope Leo X (1513â€“1521), a spendthrift member of the Medici family who once spent 1/7 of his predecessors' reserves on a single ceremony[4]

Pope Clement VII (1523â€“1534), also a Medici, whose power-politicking with France, Spain, and Germany got Rome sacked.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bad_Popes

I think you best shut up with your mudslinging in attempting to link Koresh, Jones, and Osteen with true Christianity.

The Christian recognizes the false Gospel they advance.

However, the above list of popes cannot be dismissed by the catholic. It's your pope, your church. Deal with it.

How many priests have molested boys over the centuries?? Are you prepared to answer??

Has the roman catholic cult done anything about it??

Catholics have no room to talk when their own pope, current one especially, is ridiculed and ignored by many of the "faithful".

So until you get your house in order....shut up. We're tired of hearing your same old screed.

Itâ€™s not about â€œsmartâ€ people. Itâ€™s all about people who spend their lifetimes seriously studying Christian theology and come to one unmistakable conclusion that have gone through great personal and difficult journeys. Sadly, ever since the plague if Protestantism we have thousands of contradictory heretical sects and this is because of low-information Christians. How else do you explain the rot of the Joel Osteens? the Mormons? The Jehovahâ€™s Witnesses? and the vast army of fools who take upon themselves to interpret scripture.

A few thoughts and questions.

1) Why was the Holy Spirit sent to us to dwell in us in the new covenant? And why did he destroy the temple?

2) Would you agree that the nature of man is sinful and that we can ALL be mislead?

3) Would you agree that the church was off base from the start (see Revelation 2,3) and needed to be corrected and that the correction is continual if God loves us?

A further thought, just my own. One of the tenants of conservatism is decentralization of government. I hate centralized government because it imposes general rules for every situation, no exemption. We should have had 50 state health plans, not one federal plan, but that would have been chaotic, wouldn’t it? (sarcasm) It takes away my freedom and responsibility, but many people are willing to give up freedom and responsibility for perceived security.

Yes it is scary sometimes being out in the wilderness with just God, His Word and His Spirit. Sometimes it is tempting to let others do my thinking for me. But almost every story is about God’s personal relationship with someone. I will trust Him and trust He loves me enought to correct me.

As for the "sons of the same father" theory, "adelphos" etymologically means one who was in the same womb as another, a maternal connectedness that made one a brother or sister, which connection was entirely independent of who the father was.

Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time. For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

First Corinthians, Catholic chapter fifteen, Protestant verses one to nine,
as authorized, but not authored, by King James
bold and underline emphasis mine

Strong's Concordance
adelphos: a brother
Original Word: á¼€Î´ÎµÎ»Ï†ÏŒÏ‚, Î¿á¿¦, á½
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: adelphos
Phonetic Spelling: (ad-el-fos')
Short Definition: a brother
Definition: a brother, member of the same religious community, especially a fellow-Christian.

I find it unbelievable when one comes along almost twenty centuries later and formulates a new religious theory by the study of Greek, despite the fact the early churches lived and breathed Greek, there has been a Greek speaking component of the one holy catholic apostolic church for the entire life of the church, and those Greeks and Greek scholars understand the texts otherwise.

Do you think all these five hundred "brothers" came from the same mother or is there a magic number in the new theory that changes the definition of the word ?

I can hardly wait for the first "context" comment with almost twenty centuries of holy tradition from the one holy catholic apostolic church staring us in the face. However, it is a Protestant tradition to form new religious theories, denominations, sects, faith communities, and cults. It continues to devolve with every man his own master.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bad_Popes I think you best shut up with your mudslinging in attempting to link Koresh, Jones, and Osteen with true Christianity.

For sure, since the above are not of a church or faith we defend, but "bad opes are."

Then you have what preceded the necessary Reformation, beginning with one the great intellects which certain RCs esteem above Scripture (cf. 1Co. 4:6)

For nearly half a century, the Church was split into two or three obediences that excommunicated one another, so that every Catholic lived under excommunication by one pope or another, and, in the last analysis, no one could say with certainty which of the contenders had right on his side. The Church no longer offered certainty of salvation; she had become questionable in her whole objective form--the true Church, the true pledge of salvation, had to be sought outside the institution.

It is against this background of a profoundly shaken ecclesial consciousness that we are to understand that Luther, in the conflict between his search for salvation and the tradition of the Church, ultimately came to experience the Church, not as the guarantor, but as the adversary of salvation. (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, head of the Sacred Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith for the Church of Rome, â€œPrinciples of Catholic Theology,

â€¢ Cardinal Bellarmine:

"Some years before the rise of the Lutheran and Calvinistic heresy, according to the testimony of those who were then alive, there was almost an entire abandonment of equity in ecclesiastical judgments; in morals, no discipline; in sacred literature, no erudition; in divine things, no reverence; religion was almost extinct. (Concio XXVIII. Opp. Vi. 296- Colon 1617, in â€œA History of the Articles of Religion,â€ by Charles Hardwick, Cp. 1, p. 10,)

â€¢ Catholic historian Paul Johnson additionally described the existing social situation among the clergy at the time of the Reformation:

â€œProbably as many as half the men in orders had â€˜wivesâ€™ and families. Behind all the New Learning and the theological debates, clerical celibacy was, in its own way, the biggest single issue at the Reformation. It was a great social problem and, other factors being equal, it tended to tip the balance in favour of reform. As a rule, the only hope for a child of a priest was to go into the Church himself, thus unwillingly or with no great enthusiasm, taking vows which he might subsequently regret: the evil tended to perpetuate itself.â€ (History of Christianity, pgs 269-270)

In the same candid spirit is the following statement of de MÃ©zeray, the historiographer of France: [Abregeâ€™ Chronol. VIII. 691, seqq. a Paris, 1681]

â€œAs the heads of the Church paid no regard to the maintenance of discipline, the vices and excesses of the ecclesiastics grew up to the highest pitch, and were so public and universally exposed as to excite against them the hatred and contempt of the people. We cannot repeat without a blush the usury, the avarice, the gluttony, the universal dissoluteness of the priests of this period, the licence and debauchery of the monks, the pride and extravagance of the prelates, and the shameful indolence, ignorance and superstition pervading the whole body... â€” Charles Hardwick A History of the Articles of Religion; http://www.anglicanbooksrevitalized.us/Oldies/Thirty-Nine/hardwick39.htm

And long before that,

Further deformation of the church was seen under Damasus 1 (366-384) who began his reign by employing a gang of thugs in seeking to secure his chair, which carried out a three-day massacre of his rivals supporters. Yet true to form, Rome made him a "saint."

â€¢ Upon Pope Liberius's death September 24 A.D. 366, violent disorders broke out over the choice of a successor. A group who had remained consistently loyal to Liberius immediately elected his deacon Ursinus in the Julian basilica and had him consecrated Bishop, but the rival faction of Felix's adherence elected Damasus, who did not hesitate to consolidate his claim by hiring a gang of thugs, storming the Julian Basilica in carrying out a three-day massacre of the Ursinians.

On Sunday, October 1 his partisans seized the Lateran Basilica, and he was there consecrated. He then sought the help of the city prefect (the first occasion of a Pope in enlisting the civil power against his adversaries), and he promptly expelled Ursinus and his followers from Rome. Mob violence continued until October 26, when Damasus's men attacked the Liberian Basilica, where the Ursinians had sought refuge; the pagan historian Ammianus Marcellinus reports that they left 137 dead on the field. Damasus was now secure on his throne; but the bishops of Italy were shocked by the reports they received, and his moral authority was weakened for several years....

Damasus was indefatigable in promoting the Roman primacy, frequently referring to Rome as 'the apostolic see' and ruling that the test of a creed's orthodoxy was its endorsement by the Pope.... This [false claim to] succession gave him a unique [presumptuous claim to] judicial power to bind and loose, and the assurance of this infused all his rulings on church discipline. â€” Kelly, J. N. D. (1989). The Oxford Dictionary of Popes. USA: Oxford University Press. pp. 32 ,34;

The conversion of Constatine had propelled the Bishops of Rome into the heart of the Roman establishment...They [bishops of Rome] set about [creating a Christian Rome] by building churches, converting the modest tituli (community church centres) into something grander, and creating new and more public foundations, though to begin with nothing that rivaled the great basilicas at the Lateran and St. Peterâ€™s...

These churches were a mark of the upbeat confidence of post-Constantinian Christianity in Rome. The popes were potentates, and began to behave like it. Damasus perfectly embodied this growing grandeur. An urbane career cleric like his predecessor Liberius, at home in the wealthy salons of the city, he was also a ruthless power-broker, and he did not he did not hesitate to mobilize both the city police and [a hired mob of gravediggers with pickaxes] to back up his ruleâ€¦

Self-consciously, the popes began to model their actions and their style as Christian leaders on the procedures of the Roman state. â€” Eamon Duffy â€œSaints and Sinnersâ€, p. 37,38

Additional deformation is testified to by Cardinal and convert John Newman;

would be considered heretical :

While Apostles were on earth, there was the display neither of Bishop nor Pope; their power had no prominence, as being exercised by Apostles. In course of time, first the power of the Bishop displayed itself, and then the power of the Pope. . . . St. Peterâ€™s prerogative would remain a mere letter, till the complication of ecclesiastical matters became the cause of ascertaining it. . . . When the Church, then, was thrown upon her own resources, first local disturbances gave exercise to Bishops, and next ecumenical disturbances gave exercise to Popes; and whether communion with the Pope was necessary for Catholicity would not and could not be debated till a suspension of that communion had actually occurredâ€¦ - (Essay on the Development of Doctrine, Notre Dame edition, pp. 165,166

â€¢ "We are told in various ways by Eusebius [Note 16], that Constantine, in order to recommend the new religion to the heathen, transferred into it the outward ornaments to which they had been accustomed in their own. It is not necessary to go into a subject which the diligence of Protestant writers has made familiar to most of us. The use of temples, and these dedicated to particular saints, and ornamented on occasions with branches of trees; incense, lamps, and candles; votive offerings on recovery from illness; holy water; asylums; holydays and seasons, use of calendars, processions, blessings on the fields; sacerdotal vestments, the tonsure, the ring in marriage, turning to the East, images at a later date, perhaps the ecclesiastical chant, and the Kyrie Eleison [Note 17], are all of pagan origin, and sanctified by their adoption into the Church. {374}

Then you had those times it seems so many RCs seem to long for.

â€¢ ...in the 1180s, the Church began to panic at the spread of heresy, and thereafter it took the lead from the State, though it maintained the legal fiction that convicted and unrepentant heretics were merely 'deprived of the protection of the Church', which was (as they termed it) 'relaxed', the civil power then being free to burn them without committing mortal sin. Relaxation was accompanied by a formal plea for mercy; in fact this was meaningless, and the individual civil officer (sheriffs and so forth) had no choice but to burn, since otherwise he was denounced as a 'defender of heretics', and plunged into the perils of the system himself. (Paul Johnson, History of Christianity, Â© 1976 Athenium, p. 253)

Thus do intellects speak.

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.