The Oldest Hymn to Mary (early christian worship)

Patheos Standing on my head ^ | November 6, 2015 | Fr. Dwight Longenecker

[NYer]

Papyrus in the Rylands Library, Manchester UK

One of the things that maddens and amuses me about Protestants is something called “primitivism”. I’ve written about it here. “Primitivism” is the ambition to return the church to the simplest form as it was in the “early church”.

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 traditions”. 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
AΛΛΕΚΚΙΝΔΥΝΟΥ
…ΡΥCΑΙΗΜΑC
MONH
…HEΥΛΟΓ

Full text:
Ὑπὸ τὴν σὴν
εὐσπλαγχνίαν
καταφεύγομεν
Θεοτὸκε· τὰς ἡμῶν
ἱκεσίας μὴ παρ-
ίδῃς ἐν περιστάσει
ἀλλ᾽ ἐκ κινδύνου
λύτρωσαι ἡμᾶς
μόνη ἁγνὴ
μόνη εὐλογημένη.

In English:
Beneath your
compassion
we take refuge,
Theotokos! Our
prayers, do not despise
in necessities,
but from danger
deliver us,
only pure,
only blessed one.

Here it is set to music:

Sub tuum praesidium

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.”

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!

[PeterPrinciple]

So, going back to the original question, if the Church has been corrupted “since the beginning,” how do you know what to trust, and what not to trust?

---

A good question.

One worthy a lifetime of endeavor. I wish you well in your journey.

Luk 11:9 “And so I tell you, keep on asking, and you will receive what you ask for. Keep on seeking, and you will find. Keep on knocking, and the door will be opened to you.
Luk 11:10 For everyone who asks, receives. Everyone who seeks, finds. And to everyone who knocks, the door will be opened.

[PeterPrinciple]

It reads to me

---

Keep reading.....................

Rev 3:6 “Anyone with ears to hear must listen to the Spirit and understand what He is saying to the churches.

[MHGinTN]

There is an alternate explanation: perhaps the religion of catholiciism and the religion of islam DO in fact worship the same god. But it is not YHWH.

[MHGinTN]

The Force (magic thinking) is strong with this one (you). Thank you for confirming my earlier comment that catholic minds can hold diametrically opposite assertions as simultaneously valid. But really, you don’t need to illustrate that which I describe, just to be in the discussion.

[SpirituTuo]

No one is arguing that point.

Let us remember, the Church which Christ instituted is divine, while its members are human.

Humans will be corrupt, but the Church never will be. Humans will seek to lead others astray, do horrible things in the name of God, etc. However, Christ’s teachings are perfect. How else would we have gotten them, except for Him teachings the Apostles, and the Apostles faithfully transmitting Christ’s teachings.

[PeterPrinciple]

how do you know what to trust, and what not to trust?

---

I thank you for the discussion this morning. It has given me much to reflect on.

A hint to the above, it is not a what but a whom. God is living and eternal. Jesus is resurrected and alive. His Spirit dwells in you.

[MHGinTN]

"the Church which Christ instituted is divine" ... and it is not a human institution named Catholic Church. The Church Jesus instituted is a spiritual entity, even called 'the Bride of Christ'. The Church Jesus established is somehow lending source to a 'New Jerusalem' yet to be revealed. It, this New Jerusalem, is not a catholic building, not a catholic temple, not a catholic structure, not a catholic sacramental edifice. The Church Jesus established is a creation born from above by God's Spirit and men cannot 'finish' it, or add to it for their personal glorification.

The catholic religion is hallmarked by the human assertions of men imagining they have worked out the means to transform the divine Church into a malleable human directed institution. That is anathema to what God reveals in The Bible. it is error whether the result of catholic or protestant creation. Pope Innocent is no more error free than David Kortesh. Sorry to burst that catholic bubble for you folks.

[dangus]

You know what? With all due respect (and I don’t mean that ironically), I’ll take the Greek Orthodox Church’s understanding of their own language over yours.

>> There was no need to use “anepsos” because the men and women listed are not cousins. <<

You’re presuming your conclusion.

>> 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. <<

Whatever the etymological origin may be, it’s very plain that step-siblings and half-siblings have been called “adelphos” throughout he ages. How many “adelphi” in the Old Testament era of polygamy had different mothers?

>> 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. <<

Except when they didn’t in other places. Look at the use of the word, “kai” throughout the gospel.

>> 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. <<

Yes, it is a problem for the Greek Orthodox Church’s theory. I mention them only because they know your interpretation of Greek is wrong, not because I subscribe to their theory.

The preferred Catholic explanation is that Joseph also had no child but Jesus, and that “adelphi” is merely an overly literal translation of the Hebrew word for kin (which I don’t happen to remember) . As I already noted, the Greeks reject this because they hold that Greek was the original language.

Also, simply consider this: the ancient Church had nothing invested in the notion that Jesus was an only child other than the spiritual significance of Mary as a perpetual virgin. If anyone had read the Greek the way you do, why wouldn’t the ancient Greek Church simply have adopted your position? Why all the “origin stories’ and pious literature and legends about Mary’s life?

Here’s one last thought:

According to non-biblical literature, Mary grew up in the Temple of Jerusalem until she hit puberty. There, she was inspired by God to take a vow of perpetual virginity.

How do Anna and Simeon and Elizabeth all know that Mary being with child confirms the prophecy of the Messiah, that a Virgin will give birth to the Savior of Israel? How has Simeon witnessed this fulfilled WITH HIS OWN EYES? Because they all know she has pledged perpetual virginity.

[af_vet_1981]

It reads to me that many of the members of the 7 Churches are doing right, while there are others who aren’t, which is a lot like today.

The actually teachings are still correct, yet people being people are stubborn and proud.

Good point; those churches were bona fide and legitimate churches, unlike the faith communities of some of their critics.

[PeterPrinciple]

Humans will be corrupt, but the Church never will be. Humans will seek to lead others astray, do horrible things in the name of God, etc

---

And have not humans been involved in the church? Has he not warned us about wolves in places of leadership? Was not the temple corrupted and destroyed many times in the old testament?

Are we not seeing a time in all churches where people are doing what is right in their own eyes?

Yet, there is a remmant, always is (by Gods providence). Our faith and trust is not to be placed in the church but in Jesus...............

[PeterPrinciple]

Good point; those churches were bona fide and legitimate churches, unlike the faith communities of some of their critics.

---

explain. bona fide and legitimate. by whose definition? Would you argue with God? Tell him he is wrong?

Mat 18:20 For where two or three gather together as My followers, I am there among them.”

Jesus was very critical of the early church. It was so bad, he threatened to leave unless they repented. And history shows he did leave some.

[af_vet_1981]

Adelphos is obviously capable of a wide semantic range.

Thank you for confirming in a straightforward manner that a "brother" or "sister" of Messiah Jesus need not be a physical descendant of blessed Miriam/Mary.

I understand the difference in interpretations; one relies on a continual reappraisal of discovered manuscripts, the study of unused or modified languages, and each individual's interpretation of such in the light of their own faith and intellect; continuously reforming and refining the faith once delivered to the saints, grasping to finally discover the real and final truth.

The other approach is to believe, as a little child, that the Messiah founded one holy catholic apostolic church and it has not failed, but has continually been historically present across the world from the First Century until now. The historical evidence in the posted article is compelling and reassuring that the line of my brothers and sisters goes back to the beginning.

As to the former approach, consider the transition from Independent Fundamental Baptist to Reformed Baptist. I have read that IFBs consider the fountain of their provenance to be John the Baptist, so to speak. Reformed Baptists must needs abandon that as a myth and look to a French lawyer, so to speak, for their definitive theology. But wait; there are so many divergent strains, with very little unity, that it tends to whatever a strong man may command it by force of will, intellect, language, and personal faith.

[SpirituTuo]

I agree, so what does that have to do with people attempting to diminish the Catholic Church, and all it has taught, as the Church established by Christ Himself?

The argument goes “The Catholic Church is wrong about teaching X, Y, Z. It got corrupted a long time ago. The truth is found in denomination Q, which has the fullness of truth, without all of that Catholic gobblety gook.”

When asked to define who and when a corrupt teaching entered, no specific answer is given. Rather, the presenter makes the claim it is their (or their denomination’s) interpretation which makes it so.

Either the Church’s Marian doctrines are true or they aren’t. If one chooses to belief they are false, that is one’s right. However, if the same person wishes to argue the point, be prepared to leave the argument unfulfilled.

[af_vet_1981]

explain. bona fide and legitimate. by whose definition?

The Messiah specifically wrote to those "churches." He even threatened to remove the candlestick of Ephesus if they did not repent. Except one discount Revelation, these were genuine, real, churches in the eyes of the Messiah.

Would you argue with God? Tell him he is wrong?

Not I; I read and believe Revelation. He that has ears should heed what the LORD said.

Mat 18:20 For where two or three gather together as My followers, I am there among them.”

Is that your definition of a church ?

Jesus was very critical of the early church. It was so bad, he threatened to leave unless they repented. And history shows he did leave some.

Leave ? I think it was more severe than that. So much for Once Saved Always Saved.

[MHGinTN]

How much of the following is from your magicsteeringthem and from the scriptures? ... "According to non-biblical literature, Mary grew up in the Temple of Jerusalem until she hit puberty. There, she was inspired by God to take a vow of perpetual virginity." It might be interesting to see how you fold this assertion into the BIBLE fact that Mary was betrothed to Joseph, and that betrothal was so firm that the Angel was sent to explain what was going to happen with Mary. We know it must have been real to Joseph because he was faithful to what the Angel instructed and did not put Mary away as an adulteress, since that which was conceived in her was God with us!

Are we witnessing yet another example of catholic minds able to hold two diametrically opposite notions as both simultaneously valid, simply because the magicsteerignthem has decreed a notion?

[Springfield Reformer]

How was it off base from the start? Didn’t Jesus personally instruct the Apostles? Was His teaching somehow flawed?

Straw man.  No Protestant teaches that Jesus' teachings were flawed.  

There is a difference between people being people (vain, greedy, etc.) and beliefs. While the whole “I belong to Apollo” thing was vanity, the Truth of Jesus Christ wasn’t at issue.

Really? Did you miss that whole mess in the book of Galatians? "Another Gospel."  Or "Another Jesus" at Corinth? Pretty serious charges, and right there during the apostolic era, even before the period addressed in Revelation.

BTW, the various dust-ups in the Revelation 2-3 churches were no small thing either.  Let's take a look:

1. Ephesus, the orthodox but out of focus church.  They had great consistency of doctrine.  They even hated an early heretical sect called the Nickolaitans.  That sect was not a vanity issue.  They aparently actively tried to justify sexual misconduct, probably as an attmept to harmonize the Dianna cult of Ephesus with Christian belief, so clearly an attack on doctirne as it applied to Christian morality. But despite this favorable report on their orthodoxy, Jesus still finds fault, because they had left their first love.  Somehow a shift was occurring, where the focus of their love was moving away from where it belonged, and so despite their orthodoxy, they were still at risk of losing their candlestick. Orthodox but fallen.  Orthodox but about to die. Not trivial.

2. Smyrna, church of the martyrs. No fault was found here. Only an admonition to be faithful unto death.  Presumably there could be some who needed to hear that, or else they might fail at the moment of truth. May we all endure unto the end as well as these.

3. Pergamos, church of martyrs and Nickolaitans. What a mess.  Here is a church under extreme duress, just like Smyrna, and credited for their faithfuness, yet they tolerated the Nickolaitan heresy, and were caught up in various ongoing, uncorrected sins in the church, dancing with the enemy.  And here the Nickolaitan heresy is identified expressly as doctrine.  This should remove all doubt that the early church, right out of the box, was in a pitched fight to retain it's identity in Christ, as a matter of being required to fend off doctrinal deviation.

4. Thyatira vs Jezebel.  Again, they had a faction where the doctrinal deviation profoundly affected Christian morals.  This is the sort of church that no doubt might have tolerated any of the modern deviancy movements you complain about.  And this "Jezebel" was more that just a faction leader.  She was apparently a true prototype of the classic cullt leader, not satisfied with merely teaching false doctrine, but imposing herself as a wanna-be prophetess, using the false claim of direct revelation from God to speak against plain apostolic teaching.  Given a clear choice between the record of apostolic teaching (which we have in Scripture) versus a self-affirming and contrary prophetess, the assembly at Thyatira tried to keep both.  It didn't work.  Jesus would not permit it.

5. Sardis, the zombie church. They had works. They had a name for being alive.  But they were nearly dead.  This is not mere vanity.  This is a departure from the heart of Christian teaching, that our life is our connection with our Savior, His working in us to bring forth His life, rivers of living water. Lose that, and you lose everything.  You resemble a church, but you have become one of the living dead.  Is this a doctrinal problem?  Yes, if spiritual life constitutes doctrine.  What is the greatest doctrine? Love God with everything you have, and love your neighbor as yourself. Fail that, and miss the meaning of everything.

6. Philadelphia? Apparently no error to correct here, only an admonition to endure the difficulties, because there will be a time of relief at the end.

7. Laodicea, the materialist church.  Apparently that whole area of doctrine that had to do with not getting attached to or reliant upon worldly goods had been ignored by them.  And there is actual theology to that.  If we have faith in God to take care of our material needs, such that we do not rely on them but on Him, He will care for us.  But if we shift the focus of our faith from God to things, we have become idolaters, for the coveting of stuff, even while making a show of being Christian, is idolatry, and contrary to the most basic doctrines taught by Jesus and the apostles.

So, going back to the original question, if the Church has been corrupted “since the beginning,” how do you know what to trust, and what not to trust? Since the Canon of Scripture was closed in 397 AD, what corruptions took place after that? Were they corrected? If so, by whom?

This is the epistemological question. It's not easy for anybody. At some point you have to choose whether you will believe the voice of man or the voice of God. As Jesus said, man shall live by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.  Scripture was present and active among the sons and daughters of men well before the Roman denomination decided to rubber sttamp what the whole Christian world had already recognized as the voice of God in Scripture. (a status, BTW, never accorded the deuterocanon so popular with Rome).

For those who dissent from the Catholic Church, it is an easy charge to make that it is “corrupted.” However, when one goes back to the beginning, and examines the teachings, one finds that aside from defeated heresies, “corruption” began with the Reformation, and the removal of books from the Bible. From there, any number of novel teachings and beliefs have followed.

Sorry, as demonstrated above, your assessment of the history of corrumption is well off the mark.  Clear problems were raising their ugly head during the apostolic era. For example, the early gnosticism addressed in the epistles of John was not "defeated" in the absolute sense.  That error is still with us today, and certain aspects of it have permeated the theology of major religions, not the least of which is Islam.

So it is not at all surprising that the purveyors of such error should rise to great temporal power, able to hound and persecute those who struggled to remain faithful. Like the commercial, "It's what they do."  

But the Ekklesia of Jesus Christ was never intended to operate like any carnal organization of man, fueled by the power of human perstige and eventiually even the power of the sword. To the contrary, Jesus taught that His kingdom was not of this world.  Why are we constantly reminded that the Lord knows those who are His, the whole wheats and tares dilemma? Because we don't control this organization. It is a spiritual reality, and God has no problem tracing the history of it, or who are the true members of it.  That true accounting, which I know would be great if we could do it ourselves, has not been left to us to do. We walk by faith, not by sight. Our job is to be faithful to what we have been given, the word of God, the working of the Spirit of God, the faithful teaching of the Gospel, and fellowship with the people of God.  God will sort out later who got it right and who didn't.  

The novelties continue, such as “gay” clergy, support for abortion, acceptance of divorce, and a number of other moral issues. Since there is no recognized authority among non-Catholics (excluding the Orthodox), any belief can be supported by one’s own interpretation of Scripture. That is also why there are so many non-Catholic denominations.

As noted above, even the early churches wrestled with false teachers who sought to corrupt Christian teaching and morals. The Lord will preserve those who belong to Him. Proof of corruption at any stage of Christian history is only proof that the word of God is true, that man is bent to doing evil from the moment he is born, and only a divine miracle of grace can save him from it.  Else he will suppress the truth in unrighteousness, even as Paul says, and will seek to dispace the glory of the Creator with the worship of created things, descending into the depths of idolatry and it's close cousin perversion.  Any "denomination" constituted of sinful men and women will have that problem.  

But for those who have become new creations in Christ, we see that the old ways of the flesh have passed away; all things have become new. Just as with the churches of Revelation, it's the relationship with Jesus that matters.

Peace,

SR

[MHGinTN]

Thank you for posting this prime example of conflation so prevalent in catholic apologetics: "Leave ? I think it was more severe than that. So much for Once Saved Always Saved. "

In typical catholic deceptive style you have conflated a gathering with an individual. The gathering is a group of believers and non-believers assembled in error so grievous that Jesus instructs His Spirit will deal with the gathering severely. You have conflated that with the individual who lives by the Promise of God to the individual's spirit life. This method of deception serves catholic minds seeking to establish born from above is like a yo-yo, where God puts His Spirit in the individual spirit then removes it when the individual stumbles, then puts it back in when the individual confesses to a catholic priest and is told he has absolution from the catholic church priest and so on, like a yo-yo winding and unwinding.

Thanks again for such a clear example of this dichotomous thinking process hallmarking catholic minds.

[dangus]

Ignoring all your hatred and invective, marriages at the time were not voluntary. She was expelled from the Temple. Her vow was preserved through the miracle of her Virgin pregnancy.

[cookcounty]

""According to non-biblical literature, Mary grew up in the Temple of Jerusalem until she hit puberty. There, she was inspired by God to take a vow of perpetual virginity." Sounds like very sloppy "scholarship."

1) Nobody "grew up" in the Temple, especially not a female child, to place Mary there conflicts with the Gospel, she lived a very long way, 100 miles, on foot, in Nazareth and was betrothed to Joseph, which means she was under contract to lose her virginity.

2) the "ideal" of "perpetual virginity" is an utterly pagan concept, not supported in any way by Scripture and utterly foreign to Mary's Jewish culture.

3) The Gospels (and the Book of the Acts of the Apostles) clearly say that Jesus had brothers, including James the head of the church at Jerusalem.

4) Nothing in Scripture remotely suggests that Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus. Nor do the early church fathers suggest any such thing. And it is unlikely they would ignore such a doctrine which, for the heavily Jewish early church, would have been quite controversial, even shocking. Their culture dictated that the most honored position for a woman was to be legally joined to a man physically and become a mother of children, preferably many of them.

To make these weak theories of Mary's "perpetual virginity" so important in the Catholic church was a big mistake, the result of the dangerous tendency to syncretism that weakens the church and obscures the Gospel with worthless distractions.

Mary is of course worthy of honor: She bore the Savior, she was joined to faithful Joseph, with him became the mother of children, and was obviously good at it. Good on you, Mary.

[Springfield Reformer]

Thank you for confirming in a straightforward manner that a "brother" or "sister" of Messiah Jesus need not be a physical descendant of blessed Miriam/Mary.

No problem.  But as pointed out, the mere possibility that "adelphos" can be used as a metaphor does not defeat a non-metaphorical usage of the term where appropriate. Indeed, honesty would require us to render "adelphos" as "physical sibling" where the context warrants it, such as the passages clearly referring to Jesus' brothers and sisters as ordinary biological family. Else we could be accused of distorting the word of God. Honest translation is paramount.

I understand the difference in interpretations; one relies on a continual reappraisal of discovered manuscripts, the study of unused or modified languages, and each individual's interpretation of such in the light of their own faith and intellect; continuously reforming and refining the faith once delivered to the saints, grasping to finally discover the real and final truth.

I honestly don't think you do understand our position.  I do not recall when you have represented it in a manner we would recognize as truly our view.  Our premise is rather more simple than what you have suggested.  We take God at His word.  Liberal and unbelieving theologians of all denominations reject that premise, and do not accept the accessibility of divine truth by individual believers, but relegate it to the domain of masters and experts.  But we say God uses His word to reach even the simplest believing soul, no barriers, because His will and His word and His Spirit form a team that cannot be defeated in getting divine truth to every soul that needs it.  You cannot leave out this supernatural dimension to our belief without seriously misrepresenting our view.

As for reforming, "reform" assumes that at one point the form was good, but now needs to re-form, to get back to what once was true.  This is not the presumption you seem to state, that the true truth is always just around the corner of the next discovery.  Can we learn new things? I certainly hope so.  Even Paul indicates that our knowledge now is not what it will be when we reach glory. It is only partial.  But it is sufficient for the purpose at hand, to have faith in Christ and live Godly lives.

As for the ability to defend the faith against those who would contradict it, believers of every historical period have had their work cut out for them.  Athenasius repelled the Arians with the full armada of Scriptural truth. We learned from him (and others) how to do that.  That's a good thing.  When a novel heresy comes along, we may have to work at finding the right resources in Scripture to defeat it.  But God is faithful, and has given us His word for instruction in righteousness and reproving error.  The tools to defeat error are all there. I see no problem in seeking God's help in learning how to use them.

Peace,

SR