kc << Is the Transitus beatae Mariae of Pseudo-Melito of Gnostic origin? >>
No, the document itself is not “gnostic” by my understanding of “gnosticism.” It does contain miraculous and “fanciful” stories. It is not gnostic according to classic gnosticism. From the New Catholic Encyclopedia (2003) on “Gnosticism” (volume 6, page 255ff):
– while it is difficult to present an overview of the contents of Gnostic teaching to include all the pseudo-Christian forms, the basic structure of Gnosticism can be grouped around five headings: God, the world, man, salvation, and morality;
– the distinguishing traits of Gnosticism include dualism, emanationism, and salvation through esoteric knowledge (or gnosis in Greek);
– as for soteriology, its most distinguishing feature is that salvation is accomplished not by the power of God nor by human faith nor by cooperation with the will of God, but by assimilation of esoteric knowledge;
– the Gnostic “savior” is a semi-divine personage, a messenger from God Himself; but Christ does not become man; Gnosticism is Docetic in holding that the redeemer merely seems to become incarnate; various devices are used to explain away the Passion and death of Jesus.
None of that is in the “Transitus” stories, although I haven’t read all of them. You can read some of these
"Transitus" documents online.
Stephen Shoemaker translated some of them himself which were not translated into English before. On the
Pseudo-Melito one, Shoemaker says: “It is worth noting that many of the earliest exemplars of this literary tradition are quite heterodox, and (Ps.-)Melito’s narrative is one of the earliest ‘orthodox’ responses to this earlier tradition.” (Intro to Ps.-Melito of Sardis,
The Passing of Blessed Mary)
The “Transitus” stories have this in common according to Carol’s
Mariology:
“A first common feature is that all recount the death of Mary; this is their theme, their primary concern, the event which invests them with a specious homogeneity. Around this central event several characteristic, legendary details are grouped…”
– the miraculous arrival of all or some of the Apostles;
– the tidings brought to Mary of her approaching death;
– Mary’s experience of fear;
– some hostile Jewish intervention on the occasion of her burial.
“A second common feature is that all postulate in connection with Mary’s death a divine intervention unique on such an occasion. It is on the nature, the time, and the locale of this intervention that disagreement arises. Some accounts speak of…”
– a translation of Mary’s body to a presumably earthly paradise, where it is preserved incorrupt under the Tree of Life;
– still others describe a genuine assumption, a reunion of soul and body which entails Our Lady’s entrance into Heaven.
Shoemaker presents all the ancient sources for these traditions. Some scholars indeed trace the original “stories” back to gnostic sources, others trace them to Jewish-Christian sources. They are not essentially gnostic in theology however, but present a “genuine Christian insight” that it was not fitting that the body of Mary should see corruption. That is the same theology of the orthodox Fathers, and Pope Pius XII on the Assumption.
kc << Is the Transitus beatae Mariae of Pseudo-Melito a forgery attributed to Melito? >>
A forgery in the sense it is a “pseudo” document (Pseudo-Melito). All that means is that someone AFTER the alleged author (in this case St. Melito of Sardis) attributed the authorship to Melito. This is no big deal as it was popularly done in the early Church. That doesn’t change the fact that Juniper Carol’s
Mariology calls these accounts “SIGNIFICANT” and “PRICELESS” both historically and theologically.
continued…
Phil P
