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!

[cookcounty]

Sorry for botching the italics in 399:

""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.

Let me just add: "Mary" is not mentioned in the prayer. "Theotakos" is the term, and I am much aware that this term at some point became associated with Mary. But what, at this point in history, necessitates "Mary?" The term refers to a person, obviously, but what in the context suggests Mary? Is it not more likely a reference to Christ himself? It is conjoined to the attributes of God, and Mary is not God. Or at least has not yet been promoted to such by the synods, though they clearly have the power to decree her so. The Quadrinity may yet be enshrined, there is a clear trend in ever-changing and ever-changeable Roman theology logically leading eventually to that end.

[Iscool]

Your quotes from Scripture do not disprove this.

What they prove is Mary is NOT the mother of God...

God raised this Jesus, where He now sits at the right hand of the Father, body and spirit and soul.

Not exactly...I thought you said you read scripture...

That was a human body...That human body of Jesus' couldn't handle heaven...It had to be changed...It had to be glorified...It had to be turned into a celestial body instead of the terrestrial body that Mary bore...

Same with a human body...If one was cremated and his ashes dispersed from an airplane across the globe, God is going to pull those ashes back together and create a new body out of it...How??? I don't know and I don't care...But he's going to do it...

It will not longer be the body that was produced inside of his mother...Just as Jesus no longer has the body that Mary produced...

Like John the apostle tells us...They that knew him and we don't have a clue what Jesus looks like, now...Maybe he looks like a radish, with legs...Doesn't matter, we're going to look like him when we receive our celestial bodies...

That bible that God gave us is full of things that you guys don't have a clue about and you try to convince us and each other that Mary is the mother of God...I'll bet God has a constant 'face-palm' posture...

[cookcounty]

The Prayer is translated:

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

"only". Pretty airtight exclusive term. If this prayer speaks to Mary, where does it leave her heretofore pure and blessed Son, referred to in prophecy as the "Blessed One"? Obvious demotion of the Savior. Not ok.

It's Mary who delivers us from danger?

Theologians make errors. Even Catholic ones.

[Iscool]

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.

And who told you this??? Oh, it was the corrupt humans that run your Church who told you this...

[Iscool]

This, from corrupt men who admit to not being born again (they don't even believe in it) and not saved,

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.

Compared to the written scriptures God had written to his church,

"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'.

[Springfield Reformer]

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

DG:  You’re presuming your conclusion.

Not really.  Just pointing out the obvious.  If the Greek writer had wanted to call them cousins, "anepsos" would be the word to use.  It wasn't used, so the Greek writer meant something else.  What else is on the table? Spiritual brother?  Brother Israelite?  As I pointed out before, there is simply no example in the NT corpus of "adelphos" meaning anything but "brother."  I'll grant a metaphorical usage where warranted, but the context is all wrong for that, and as between you and me, I didn't think that was on the table as an option. My mistake if I assumed incorrectly.

In any event, any solution which requires us to mind-read the writer of the Biblical text is suspect out of the gate. The burden of proof is on you to show that the obvious first-order semantic value is not the correct understanding.  I grant that sometimes an argument like that can be made, and I am not raising it as an insurmountable barrier.  But in this exchange I don't think that burden has been met, so the ordinary, straightforward meaning must be accepted as true, regardless of much later developments in Marian dogma.

Whatever the etymological origin may be, it’s very plain that step-siblings and half-siblings have been called “adelphos” throughout he ages.

I do not dispute this. I have often warned others here of the etymological fallacy.  Words do shift meaning over time.  But the secondary relationships are just that, secondary.  It is what we would call in the law a rebuttable presumption. The primary sense is the default sense.  When we see "adelphos" in the NT corpus, we should expect it to refer to biological brothers or sisters, and typically that is exactly correct.  

But if contextual clues suggest we should move on to one of the secondary senses, then sure, we should do that. The problem is no one here has yet made a cogent case for why these "brother/sister" passages concerning Jesus cannot be understood biologically, other than the standard offering that "X denomination has not believed that."  That is not a substantive argument.  It is a lame appeal to authority.  I respect that folks have a right to defer to raw denominational authority if they wish. I find it unpersuasive.

SR: ... it is not surprising that someone rolling out such a series of possessives might opt for economy and drop excessively repetitive definite articles. <<

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

There is some variation, to be sure. What you have failed to do, so far, is show how these minor elements of linguistic efficiency actually move the translation in your direction. If you want to give it another try, please feel free to do so.  I'm always game to learn something new. :)

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.

Hmmm.  Now it is you who is presuming the conclusion.  Hard to avoid, isn't it. :)

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.

The word in Hebrew is, I believe, "ach." Again, the Lukan passage disproves this theory rather completely, as Luke uses "adelphos" for Jesus' brothers, and Luke was a native and highly competent writer of the Greek, and would not have engaged in that sort of cross-language ambiguity.  

But perhaps more importantly, as an evangelical, I accept that the Holy Spirit chose the Greek as the vehicle for recording these inspired facts, and I am not in any position to speculate on hidden Hebrew or Aramaic meanings, unless the text explicitly invites it (Peter as Cephas, for example).  Second-guessing clear choices of the Holy Spirit is not a safe hobby. I'm not for it.

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?

That is begging the question, baking your answer into your question.  The later-developed belief in perpetual virginity (possibly an outgrowth of gnostic aversion to human sexuality) is precisely the kind of fabrication that would form a strong bias against what would otherwise be obvious references to physical siblings.  But if the primary sources do not suggest perpetual virginity (and the Scriptures do not), then there is simply no reason to import that bias into the translation of the sibling passages.  Otherwise your argument is fatally circular.

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.

The arguments you recite here amount to wild speculation against silence. We could build an entire fiction novel around all the possible unstated connections between the various characters in the nativity story.  The writers of "Lost" and "Once Upon a Time" could no doubt have a field day reconstructing the story that way, what they call in the movies a "retcon," retroactive continuity with some later developed narrative.  This allows the 'retconned" reader to go back to the original text and read into it all kinds of things that simply are not true.

For example, if you leave the Holy Spirit out of all these passages, sure, now you need a "backstory" to explain how they all knew so much.  But hey, maybe it was the Holy Spirit after all? And if so, the fabricated backstory is just as unnecessary as yet another James Bond movie.  Can you eliminate the Holy Spirit as the agent of supernatural knowledge in these events?  I don't think you can:

And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:
(Luke 1:41)

And on and on it could go.  Do you remember the backstory of how Peter really knew Jess us was the expected Messiah of God? That's right, there isn't one. The Father just revealed it to him:

And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
(Matthew 16:17)

So you see, this is the sort of trap anyone can fall into when we try to fill in the supposed "gaps" in Scripture. There are things God has not told us, but these are things we don't need to know. Classified. Top Secret.  Above our pay grade.  He does tell us, and has already told us in His word, everything we need to know to have saving faith in Christ, and to live a life pleasing to Him.  Why that isn't enough for some is beyond me.

Peace,

SR

[ealgeone]

She was expelled from the Temple.

??

And you base this claim on what?

What'd she do to "get kicked" out of the Temple?

[SpirituTuo]

If you believe Jesus established a Church on Earth, then by its very nature, it is divine.

[Springfield Reformer]

Third paragraph from the bottom. “Jess us” should have been “Jesus.” Spellcheck. I’m sure it was trying to be helpful. Sigh.

[redleghunter]

All those Medici popes. Wonder if that was just a coincidence. :)

[WVKayaker]

"According to non-biblical literature, Mary grew up in the Temple of Jerusalem until she hit puberty. ..."

"According to non-biblical literature, Brer' Rabbit grew up in the thorns of the Briar Patch until he got out ..."

Makes just as much truth...

[rwa265]

That bible that God gave us is full of things that you guys don’t have a clue about and you try to convince us and each other that Mary is the mother of God

---

There you go again saying you guys. I do read Scripture and I do know that it is in His glorified body that Jesus sits at the right hand of the Father. But I must admit there are things I do not understand. What I am trying to do is find out whether you agree that Jesus, the son of Mary, is God. Do you agree that the child described in the following passages is the son of Mary? Do you agree that this child is God?

Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily. But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins. Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus. (Matthew 1:18-25)

Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him. When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him. And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born. And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written by the prophet, And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel. Then Herod, when he had privily called the wise men, enquired of them diligently what time the star appeared. And he sent them to Bethlehem, and said, Go and search diligently for the young child; and when ye have found him, bring me word again, that I may come and worship him also. When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was. When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy. And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense and myrrh. (Matthew 2:1-11)

And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary. And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be. And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. (Luke 1:26-35)

If you do not agree that this child is the son of Mary or that He is not God, could you explain why?

If you do agree that this child is the son of Mary and that He is God, I do not understand how you can say that Mary is not the mother of God. Where does it say in Scripture that Mary is not the mother of God?

[MayflowerMadam]

“Where does it say in Scripture that Mary is not the mother of God?”

Where does it say in Scripture that Mary is not the mother of Oz The Great And Powerful? I think she might be. By your logic, if something is NOT in the Bible, it is the truth.

[MHGinTN]

LOL ... that one is worthy of my FRiend, Elsie!

[mdmathis6]

What Jesus himself had to say about “HIS MOTHER”(and other relatives).

“Matthew 12:46While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him. 47Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee. 48But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? 49And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! 50For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.”

So if any of us do the Father’s will, we will be considered as though we were his “mother, sister and brother”! This passage alone shows us the “relative” value that he placed upon his family, comparing our relationship to the Father to his relationship with his own family!

[redleghunter]

Thank you for the Biblical exegesis of the 7 churches.

[rwa265]

Where does it say in Scripture that Mary is not the mother of Oz The Great And Powerful? I think she might be. By your logic, if something is NOT in the Bible, it is the truth.

---

If you have not been following along, there has been an ongoing discussion about whether Mary is the mother of God. I believe it IS in the Bible; others disagree.
When I have asked for an explanation of how Matthew 1 and 2, Luke 1 and 2, and John 1 do not clearly show that Mary is the mother of God, I have not received a response. Would you like to give it a try?

[rwa265]

Correction. I have received responses, but they did not give me an understanding of how it could be said that Mary is not the mother of God.

[rwa265]

This verse has been mentioned before. I’m not sure why Jesus made this statement, but it did not change the fact that Mary was the mother of Jesus.

[MayflowerMadam]

God created Mary; she could not possibly be His mother. God is infinite; Mary is not. (The Bible warns us about worshiping the creature instead of the Creator.)

He used Mary as a vessel/tool to introduce His Son to earth. In that role, she was Jesus’ earthly mother.

In Luke, Mary called God her “Savior”. If she were God’s mother, she would be perfect — God-like. If so, she would not need a “Savior”.