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 really don't understand the hatred for the Theotokos expressed by professed Christians. The only possible reason I can think of is that since Roman Catholics have such devotion to Mary, there must be something wrong with it.
This is one of our most beloved hymns in the Orthodox Church.
Here is a short (2-minute) video
which is interesting in that it is a beautiful choral setting by a Russian Orthodox composer (Bortnyansky) of a Greek hymn, sung by a Serbian Orthodox choir in an Orthodox church in Romania. (The point being that this hymn is known and loved throughout many regions of the world.
I hope that the many Protestants who reject so much of Roman Catholicism on political/theological grounds, are at least aware that there are hundreds of millions of Christians to the east who can provide independent confirmation of the practices of what really was the early church.
The early ‘church’ was perverted by the third century. We can’t use them as a reference anymore than we can hold todays political atmosphere as representative of the one which formed our nation.
Y’shuas Messiah followed the practices established at the time of Moses which differed from rabbinic law in some ways. This did not include focusimg worship on himself on his Mom. He said to worship God.
He also practiced a Saturday sabbath as well as the Holy days which were set forth ny God. Sunday worship was one of 5je changes made ny men after the death ofthe last apostal, John, amd didn’t even exist with Polycarp. So yes, things morphed and changed quite a bit after the first century, which shouldn’t be justified as being correct. We are to follow tje way, the truth, the life which is Y’shah (the Hebrew name of Messiah); not other men. All other men are in error of they differ from Messiah.
But Jesus by his own words said "I and the Father are one". Ergo, Jesus is Lord. And Mary is mother of the Lord Jesus in the flesh as Elizabeth addressed her.
Now here I am defending what is true in the Catholic church. There are many things that I don't accept any more and some I'm not sure of.
That’s precisely the problem with Bible-Christians. The Bible did not drop from the skies and self assemble themselves in the order in which they were found. It is the Catholic Church through its early Church fathers and theologians labored for some three centuries sorting out various fragments of writings, and gave us what we now call the Bible- the authoritative word of God. They did this by relying on the oral tradition. That Divine authority did not vanish with the curse of the Reformation that washed ashore more than a century and half later that gave us every imaginable and contorted form of Protestantism.
The very John you cite said in 21: 25
“But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.”
The oral tradition tells us that without Mary’s intercession, and belief in the written and oral words that instruct on the Holy Eucharist, there is no salvation.
So, you wouldn't sing any of these kind of hymns (for some quick examples)?
Awesome bump.
Sorry. A hymn to Mary is not “Christian”. Try pagan.
“Remember also that Ave Maria was the way the angel addressed Mary, angelic music put to music.”
How can one “remember also” something that isn’t true? It’s blasphemy. I quit a rather wonderful city chorus because “Ave Marie” was slated for the next season’s concert.
Nothing before 100ad. Never.
Even if that were so (which is still somewhat doubtful) there is insufficient evidence for prayer TO "Mary" be widespread in those times earlier than post- Council of Ephesus for 'Mary' to be the subject of prayer request that it be herself that deliver and "protect", etc.
If these were not so, then we would have all heard of it by now, instead of these strenuous efforts along the margins to assert that prayers to her seeking her own personal protection (as pagans would seek the favor of their gods and goddesses) were a thing widely approved of.
There is otherwise evidence to the contrary (of prayers to Mary seeking her own personal intercession) documented through Epiphanius writing against Collyridians who went beyond merely honoring the mother of the Incarnate Christ, to worshiping her as Queen of Heaven, thus singled out by Epiphanius as being one of the many heresies of his own time.
This is an interesting charge. When and by whom are relevant questions. If the early Church was corrupted, what were the corruptions, when did they occur, and by whom? Additionally, what is the correct teaching, and according to whom?
Additionally, if Jesus’s teachings were passed by the Apostles and the disciples, which Apostles or disciples passed the wrong information?
Some have claimed St. Polycarp, student of John the Beloved, taught non-Biblical teachings. Aside from the fact the Bible wasn’t assembled and accepted until 397 and 419, there is nothing to suggest otherwise, except the beliefs held by the accusers.
“Hail, Mary,
Filled fully with grace
The Lord is with you.”
“All generations shall call me blessed.
For he that is mighty hath magnified me : and holy is his Name.”
>> When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to her, “Woman, here is the son of you,” and to the disciple, “Here is the mother of you.”
Now, Protestants allege Mary had sons, besides Jesus. And John was young enough, he probably still had a mother. But this disciple is never called, “John.” We know that identification only by comparing the events he describes in the first person to other biblical accounts. He is identified, “the disciple that Jesus loved.”
Did Jesus not love the other disciples? Of course he did. But John the Evangelist is inviting the reader to apply all of the commands given by Jesus to all those whom Jesus loves and who love Jesus.
Who told you to divide the man from the deity? God didn't. Jesus said when you see Him, you see the Father. He is fully man AND fully divine... there is no division within Him.
Yeah, 200 years seems to be about enough to 1) face pagan opposition; 2) take a simple expression by Elizabeth to Mary; 3) build all kinds of logical (not scriptural)extensions; 4) leading to a veneration that never crossed the minds of the apostles or brothers of Jesus.
Makes sense, too, that it began in Egypt, where Isis was the mother of the gods.
The word used to describe Job as “blessed” is precisely the same word used to describe Mary in the gospels.
I’m studying 1st, 2nd, and 3rd John. He really writes about false teachers. It’s been interesting.
Your Bible also doesn’t say anything about Sola Scriptura.
Children are blessings. Women who did not have children were deemed not blessed. Nothing more, nothing less. Magnify the LORD and rejoice in God our savior alone, as did Mary.
Now, Protestants allege Mary had sons, besides Jesus.
Now, the Bible tells us Mary had other sons and daughters. In fact, it is very clear on this point.
And John was young enough, he probably still had a mother.
Speculation on your part.
But this disciple is never called, “John.†We know that identification only by comparing the events he describes in the first person to other biblical accounts. He is identified, “the disciple that Jesus loved.â€
Did Jesus not love the other disciples? Of course he did.
Agree.
But John the Evangelist is inviting the reader to apply all of the commands given by Jesus to all those whom Jesus loves and who love Jesus.
Not in this passage.
The Greek for son of you and mother of you is in the genitive. This indicates possession. In both cases these are singular. Jesus is entrusting His mom to the disciple He loved. No one else. The Greek rejects your claim assertion.
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.