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!
Again, you direct me to some unspecified “vast number of versions” that “demonstrates a far older tradition,” and I can find nothing earlier than the Protoevangelium of James, mid to late Second Century, that discusses the doctrine of perpetual virginity. Without something more solid than “vast numbers” of something I can’t seem to find, what am I to do? I am unwilling to speculate against the facial evidence of Scripture, that “adelphos” has it’s ordinary meaning of physical sibling in discussing the brothers and sisters of Jesus.
Peace,
SR
As a matter of proper citation Jerome misses the mark and leaves us guessing as to what quality and how germane his sources are in regard to the alleged perpetual virginity of Mary.
He doesn’t even pass the FR Poster test. How would it go here if someone posted, “and a bunch of early Christian writers agree with me that the ark was painted blue, so I’m really right about that?” Would you take that poster seriously? Now let’s up the ante: “You have to believe the ark was painted blue or you are denying the faith.”
Hmmmm ...
Nope, sorry, not good enough. Which is why this is not really about ancient sources at all. This is about whether one has made an a priori commitment to Roman Catholic epistemology, and that’s getting the chariot in front of the horse, and we all know how unstable rear-hoof drive is. :)
Peace,
SR
According to your proposed exegesis, none of the Messiah's words to the seven churches apply to individuals, only to the assemblies as a whole. An assembly must remember, repent, and do the first works to live. Otherwise it dies. The Messiah stands at the door and knocks. If "anyone" hears His voice and opens the door, it is presumably the door to the whole assembly in this proposal. And then He sups with the individual who opened the door to the assembly, or with everyone in the assembly. Perhaps there is a threshold. If ten righteous are found in the assembly it lives; otherwise it is overthrown.
I think the idea of each assembly having salvation and eternal life as corporate entities that can then be removed is rather undeveloped in scripture. "He who has ears to hear" seems quite individualistic to me, as much as "any man."
'Behold, I stand at the door and knock, if any man will follow the sacramental trail and make sure his confessions to a catholic priest are caught up to date and wear an magicsteeringthem approve brown talisman, and eat my body, blood, soul and divinity in a church wafer, and pray to my Mother for grace, and spend time in a place of refining punishment, and have his friends and relatives read their rosaries for his deliverance from the punishment, I will come in and sup with him when he is worthy.'
http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php/2007/08/22/the-33000-denominations-myth/
http://contra-gentes.blogspot.com/2008/04/doctrinal-chaos-argument-one-of.html
Is mocking Catholics by attributing your own words to them in false quotes walking in the Spirit of walking after the flesh ?
I am seeking to awaken catholic souls to the truth about their religion, a religion which is not what Jesus established and which the early believers sustained in faith. I am mocking the heretical nature of Catholicism. Your mileage may vary ...
kerping
BTW, the Mormons try to do the same trick you just tried, conflate the ism with the individuals. I mocked the ism, you tried to shift it to the individuals. No sale
Check your post 451???
catholic.com disagrees with you.
An important historical document which supports the teaching of Mary’s perpetual virginity is the Protoevangelium of James, which was written probably less than sixty years after the conclusion of Mary’s earthly life (around A.D. 120), when memories of her life were still vivid in the minds of many.
However, due to considerations of ceremonial cleanliness, it was eventually necessary for Mary, a consecrated "virgin of the Lord," to have a guardian or protector who would respect her vow of virginity. Thus, according to the Protoevangelium, Joseph, an elderly widower who already had children, was chosen to be her spouse. (This would also explain why Joseph was apparently dead by the time of Jesus’ adult ministry, since he does not appear during it in the gospels, and since Mary is entrusted to John, rather than to her husband Joseph, at the crucifixion).
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/mary-ever-virgin
Do catholics really know their own history??
For the record, I made a a private reply to Steelfish a couple days ago. I haven’t done an exhaustive analysis of his supplied sources but I did give three concerns to him about the quality of his 10s of thousands figures.
I asked him if he’d like me to post those preliminary points. I’ve had no response.
I will look at your links, too.
Thanks.
I’m not sure where you’re sensing a disagreement between Catholic.com and what I said, but the protoevangelium of James cites that Joseph had older sons, whereas the prevailing Catholic position, which is non-doctrinal, expressed by Jerome, is that Joseph was also a virgin.
Where did the kids come from in that case??
Where did the kids come from in that case??
Here is the answer to your question:
Can you tell me if the Church teaches that Joseph was a virgin, or was he a widower with children who was quite older than Mary?
An early tradition has it that Joseph was a widower who married the Virgin Mary later in life (after already having a family with his first wife). A later tradition says that Joseph was a virgin and that the “brothers” of Jesus were other relatives, perhaps cousins. Because we simply don’t know, Catholics are free to believe either tradition. All that is required of us to believe is that Mary remained a perpetual virgin, including throughout her marriage to Joseph.
http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/was-st-joseph-a-virgin-or-a-widower-with-children
The context makes it clear are indeed His brothers and sisters.
In spite of the multiple passages telling us Jesus had children??
Where does it say Jesus had children?
Um, I think you meant JOSEPH had children. I know of no near canonical text which says Jesus had children. That’s a ‘Brownism’.
Sorry, brothers and sisters.
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.