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!
The one who wants to believe Jesus was married is not very different from the one who wants to believe Mary had children after Jesus. They have both rejected the centuries of teaching by the one holy catholic apostolic church and chosen a different version of both Jesus and Mary, all the while regarding it as biblical. They both hold to nonOrthodox theories and theologies.
I for one have no prior commitment to how many children Mary had after Jesus, or whether she and Joseph had a normal sexual relationship after Jesus was born. My expectation would be that God has blessed marriage as one of the supremely good things ever done in all creation, and so I would expect a godly couple to live with all the joys and blessings of married life, including a normal, healthy sexual relationship, leading to children, as it typically does.
You repeat the modern argument for Jesus being married with children, namely the expectation would be that God has blessed marriage as one of the supremely good things ever done in all creation. One could add he was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
But if Scripture had gone against those expectations, and actually taught that Joseph and Mary were celibate after Jesus' birth, I would accept that as truth. Likewise, if Scripture had taught that Jesus had gone full cultural rabbi and married someone, while that would have been very difficult to understand theologically, I would have to accept it as true. God's word is the measure of truth. Not my expectations.
Yet you interpret the scriptures according to yourself. You are are your own pope, as it were.
Happily, Scripture supports neither of those deviations from the plain text. The ordinary sense of "adelphos" is brother, and when Luke the Gentile uses it,
Now that is funny. Where does the scripture say Luke is "the Gentile?"
he is using it because that's the word a native Greek-speaking Gentile would use for "brother," a "physical sibling." As for Jesus being married, the speculation is based on an incomplete representation of rabbinic culture, where one discovers, on closer examination, there are clear examples of respected rabbis who never were married.
Can you name a single rabbi from the scriptures who never was married ? Can you name a single Jewish man in the scriptures, other than someone who was a captive or died an untimely death, who was never married ?
So I am compelled to reject your analysis.
I was not expecting you to publicly embrace a Catholic teaching on FR. It would utterly demoralize your disciples for one thing.
Your effort to equate faithful translation
Are you working on a translation of the Bible ?
to wildly errant liberal speculation is nonsensical. Without discipline in translation, Scripture could be made to say anything, as this thread amply demonstrates. Nevertheless, you are free to believe as you wish. Oh, but I am not; I accept the teaching of the one holy catholic apostolic church. I am not my own pope at all.
I have no disciples. But it is entertaining of you to suggest it.
Anyway, in the absence of any substantive rebuttal from you on the major points, I'd say we're done for now. I leave the reader to make up their own mind.
Peace,
SR
Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write; These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, who walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks; I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars: And hast borne, and hast patience, and for my name's sake hast laboured, and hast not fainted. Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love. Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent. But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate. He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches;,To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.
Diminish faith if you feel you must. The Bible as a whole speaks to all the issues as needed. But I have no doubt you already knew that. I again invite the reader to consider all the evidence for themselves.
Peace,
SR
I don't mean that you seek out disciples, but surely you have noticed the following and accolades, how many depend on you for your antiCatholic analyses. They would be devastated if you publicly embraced something so Catholic, so go easy on them.
Anyway, in the absence of any substantive rebuttal from you on the major points, I'd say we're done for now. I leave the reader to make up their own mind.
As if you were able to compel the reader otherwise ...
I'll stand with the Hebrews, and I expect Luke to be there too, and there is no contradiction. And they took Lot, Abram's brother's son, who dwelt in Sodom, and his goods, and departed. And there came one that had escaped, and told Abram the Hebrew; for he dwelt in the plain of Mamre the Amorite, brother of Eschol, and brother of Aner: and these were confederate with Abram. And when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive, he armed his trained servants, born in his own house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued them unto Dan. And he divided himself against them, he and his servants, by night, and smote them, and pursued them unto Hobah, which is on the left hand of Damascus. And he brought back all the goods, and also brought again his brother Lot, and his goods, and the women also, and the people.
Genesis, Catholic chapter fourteen, Protestant verses twelve to sixteen,
as authorized, but not authored,
by King James
bold and underline emphasis mine
It was not mentioned in the scripture there, was it ? Works was mentioned, and it is fundamental to the word of the LORD there. Remember, repent, and do the first works.
Hi again!
Lots in your post.
First off, I would point you to something that might be said about the science and how it relates to Genesis.
I’ll just lay out the idea that Genesis 1:1 is actually silent about the age of the earth before the Bible narrative begins. It makes no difference where the text is concerned if physical creation were moments old or billions of years old for that reason.
Rather, Genesis speaks to the condition of the earth at that time.
Now, you may be familiar with these two things about the current state of scientific knowledge:
... first what may be called catastrophism is now an accepted view, that we do in fact recognize that the have been the odd immeasurably bad days to happen along on this little planet and the old notions that things only ever happen very slowly without titanic upheaval in the course of our planet’s development, both in terms of geology and life is no longer quite so accepted;
... second is the simple fact that the fossil record is generally somewhat coarse, IIRC often on the order of thousands of years in prehistory, and ever longer the farther back you go (on the order of millions of years really far back).
So together these speak to an inability to detect short term events and the loss of any “scientific” ability to demand such events simply have not happened.
This, among other things, leads me to asking what does Scripture actually demand.
With respect to Genesis I think Scripture demands the following:
... first that The Lord has previously made the raw materials with which He is subsequently described as working, or the earth and the heavens and all these contain;
... there is this time before the “first day”, a night and then a day, that is not included in the 7 days and it is during this time that the state of the earth is described as formless and void;
... no mention is made if the night before the beginning of that day, when He is described as hovering over the waters and before the moment when He says “Let light be.” represents just some day or the literal first moments.
I take these together to mean that Scripture neither requires nor forbids the notion that those were the literal first moments of time and physical existance. Thus if “young earth” or “old earth” it makes little difference to what the text says.
But the condition that the text demands the earth to have been in requires that some catestrophy had befallen any “old earth” to be as described.
Moreover, in either case Scripture demands that life on earth as we know it, or at least the higher orders of life, are descended from creatures made before the Woman, later to be called Eve after the fall.
I say before the Woman because a select group of animals were made after Adam, after he had been told by God not to eat of the TotKoG&E, and that their creation was distinct from any similar beasts made before them in that they were not called from the earth but were fashioned from it in a manner not entirely unlike His making the Man.
The context in which these are made is important: these specific beasts are only made after The Lord says it is not good for Adam to be alone. They are then made and presented to him and whatever he called them that is what they were. Then when this lot has been paraded by He makes the Woman.
So that is why I say Genesis requires all higher life forms, if not all life on earth from which present life is descended, be made before the woman.
You may have heard that Genesis gives different accounts of the creation of man and woman but I don’t think that’s really true. Rather two accounts of the creation of the beasts are given, the second within the context of The Lord determining that it wasn’t good for Adam to be alone and subsequently providing for that need.
We can of course wonder about, speculate why He made those animals in that context and what it has to do with the Woman ... but the text is silent on that too save that it must have something to do with Adam naming them.
So I could tell you what I think may have been going on ... but that would be speculation and would be little different than deciding for young or old earth (when the Scripture requires neither).
So here we arrive back at “science”: by any methodology at our disposal there is no way to test or falsify the creation account. It represents a point in time, read literally, that is too short to discern in the evidence available (assuming we are reading that aright), can no longer be ruled out because catestrophies don’t happen (the view till quite recently), and as such various efforts to spiritualize the text, so it is not literally read, are undermined themselves for being unnecessary, which is to say that perceived “scientific”need for said spiritualization is undermined.
Which is to say: all these reasons men have come up with to not believe the text don’t really hold water.
This is also true of the Flood, for if plate tectonics has been going on at a steady rate, rather than there being times of relatively rapid movement, then there is evidence of human civilization of staggering age on the Altiplano of South America ... but if continents post-flood were really booking it for a time then it just is some antediluvian ruins (the natives apparently drowned).
Of course, Christ being who He says He is kinda makes Him someone with firsthand knowledge of the events so if you’re gonna believe Him at all, and He talks about something as if it’s true .... well, you already went there.
But don’t be discouraged if people go on about science. C.S.Lewis wrote that to a certain degree one gets the science that they want. This is even true of the hard sciences, so how much more those built on interpretation of sometimes limited evidence?
...
Now, about familiar or familial spirits ... an old minister of mine had a saying that may be relevant: “run screaming from the room.”
And I’m oh so glad to read of your discomfort with the like.
The holy angels go forth at The Lord’s command all through the earth ... but they do NOT lead folks into sin or to systems of thought to drive them far away from God as the occult does.
Please understand that what you describing MAY BE a matter of how Satan’s kingdom is set up, that it is organized. One fallen angel in that organization may well have a dominion over particular families of men. Satan obviously hates all mankind, as well as probably everything that isn’t himself. I’ve heard it said that he especially hates women and I’m not hostile to that view. Still, however it happens, we have spiritual enemies and they are organized.
They are also badly outnumbered by the holy angels, who are also organized ... and let’s not mention being immeasurably overpowered if you consider The Lord beyond that.
So, yes, when facing the occult and any other bad things we should do as Joseph did with Poiiphar’s wife, proverbially run screaming from the room, but also straight to our knees.
Prayer is how we open up those proverbial cans of serious (and spiritual) whoop-*** on our behalf, summoning even the armies that Gehazi finally saw gathered all around Elisha.
The relationship between faith and works is a well-covered topic. I recommend looking at the full range of Biblical teaching on the matter, as opposed to proof-texting. A full read of Romans would be a great start. But you can parse it however you like.
Peace,
SR
No where. Worship of Mary is wrong! Christ made it simple. ONLY through HIM do you see the Father. Period. End of statement. Worshiping Mary gets to to hell and that is all. Mary cannot forgive sins. Mary cannot get you to heaven. I don’t give a tinkers what anyone says. If you believe she can, well you will join all the others in the Lake of Fire of unbelievers. Only through Jesus Christ. Not through Mary, the pope, some priest or bishop. ONLY, ONLY through Jesus Christ shall you enter HIS heaven. Sorry to bust the bubble. But, if they had read the Bible instead of listening to a pope, you’d know all this.
You don’t get the staggering point of that verse.....Jesus would deny his own mother if she did not do the will of the Father! That was the importance Christ spiritually placed upon his own earthly family. If you and I do the will of the Father then we are considered like his very own Father, mother sister and brother!
Now Mary did the will of the Father so I am not negating Mary. Jesus’ own attitude though stands in stark contrast to the hyper importance Catholics have placed upon Mary in the heavenly scheme of things! Note that the verse takes the time to state that Christ when told of Mary’s presence.. Christ “stretched forth his hand” toward the disciples as he spoke “those who do the will of the Father are my mother, sister, and brother”. A lot of people overlook that aspect of that passage...of Christ pointing at the disciples as he spoke of our heavenly duties. That the writer of Matthew took the time to mention that simple gesture tells me that the observer took what Jesus said very much to heart. Mary mothered Jesus, the angel said she would bear “a son”, but Christ said only those who did the will of the Father would be considered his “mother, sister, and brother”!
Did you see this?
I do understand the full impact of what Jesus said. As His mother, Mary was sometimes more concerned about Jesus as her son than she was about Jesus as the Son of God. He reminded her of this when He was 12, and again at the wedding feast in Cana. And in this passage, Jesus was letting everyone know that it is always about the will of the Father.
Then you know why Christ made the statement that he made!
Which came first, GOD or Mary? Can the one who comes second give rise the one Who gave rise to the second?
We both know the answer. God knit Mary in her mother’s womb, and shaped her days before one came to be. (Cf. Psalm 139) At the appointed time, the Holy Ghost came upon Mary, and the power of the Highest overshadowed her: therefore also that holy thing which was born of her was to be called the Son of God. (Cf. Luke 1:35)
That's one of the questions I asked Salvation a few days ago...
How pathetic: Here we are talking about doctrine and you refer to anti-Catholic blogs to brings out so-called “bad” popes?
This is the typical shallow thinking that has Protestantism and its 1001 doctrinal varieties in the sewer.
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.