Mary living in Temple?

[Randy_Carson]

There is another tradition in the Church (little known now, I suspect), that Mary was the very first person ever to make a vow of Virginity to God. From memory, you will find in in St. Ildephonsus’ writings.

Precedent for the Mary’s Dedication to the Lord

1 Samuel 1:19-28
19 Early the next morning they worshiped before the LORD, and then returned to their home in Ramah. When Elkanah had relations with his wife Hannah, the LORD remembered her. 20 She conceived, and at the end of her term bore a son whom she called Samuel, since she had asked the LORD for him. The next time her husband Elkanah was going up with the rest of his household to offer the customary sacrifice to the LORD and to fulfill his vows, 22 Hannah did not go, explaining to her husband, “Once the child is weaned, I will take him to appear before the LORD and to remain there forever; I will offer him as a perpetual nazirite.” 23 Her husband Elkanah answered her: “Do what you think best; wait until you have weaned him. Only, may the LORD bring your resolve to fulfillment!” And so she remained at home and nursed her son until she had weaned him. 24 Once he was weaned, she brought him up with her, along with a three-year-old bull, an ephah of flour, and a skin of wine, and presented him at the temple of the LORD in Shiloh. 25 After the boy’s father had sacrificed the young bull, Hannah, his mother, approached Eli 26 and said: “Pardon, my lord! As you live my lord, I am the woman who stood near you here, praying to the LORD. 27 I prayed for this child, and the LORD granted my request. 28 Now I, in turn, give him to the LORD; as long as he lives, he shall be dedicated to the LORD.” She left him there;

From this passage, we see a biblical precedent for the perpetual dedication of a child to God. Hannah then goes on to worship God in the following words:

1 Samuel 2:1-2, 7-8
1 and as she worshiped the LORD, she said: "My heart exults in the LORD, my horn is exalted in my God. I have swallowed up my enemies; I rejoice in my victory. 2 There is no Holy One like the LORD; there in no Rock like our God. … 7 The LORD makes poor and makes rich, he humbles, he also exalts. 8 He raises the needy from the dust; from the ash heap he lifts up the poor, To seat them with nobles and make a glorious throne their heritage.

These words are echoed by Mary’s canticle in Luke:

Luke 1:46-55
And Mary said: “My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord; 47 my spirit rejoices in God my savior. 48 For he has looked upon his handmaid’s lowliness; behold, from now on will all ages call me blessed. 49 The Mighty One has done great things for me, and holy is his name. 50 His mercy is from age to age to those who fear him. 51 He has shown might with his arm, dispersed the arrogant of mind and heart. 52 He has thrown down the rulers from their thrones but lifted up the lowly. 53 The hungry he has filled with good things; the rich he has sent away empty. 54 He has helped Israel his servant, remembering his mercy, 55 according to his promise to our fathers, to Abraham and to his descendants forever.”

Is it possible that Mary was dedicated to God by her mother in the same way that Samuel was dedicated to God by Hannah as a perpetual Nazirite? And could it be that Mary’s own prayer was patterned after that of Hannah precisely because she had studied the story of Hannah and Samuel in light of her own perpetual dedication to God?

 

[Qoeleth]

Precedent for the Mary’s Dedication to the Lord

1 Samuel 1:19-28
19 Early the next morning they worshiped before the LORD, and then returned to their home in Ramah. When Elkanah had relations with his wife Hannah, the LORD remembered her. 20 She conceived, and at the end of her term bore a son whom she called Samuel, since she had asked the LORD for him. The next time her husband Elkanah was going up with the rest of his household to offer the customary sacrifice to the LORD and to fulfill his vows, 22 Hannah did not go, explaining to her husband, “Once the child is weaned, I will take him to appear before the LORD and to remain there forever; I will offer him as a perpetual nazirite.” 23 Her husband Elkanah answered her: “Do what you think best; wait until you have weaned him. Only, may the LORD bring your resolve to fulfillment!” And so she remained at home and nursed her son until she had weaned him. 24 Once he was weaned, she brought him up with her, along with a three-year-old bull, an ephah of flour, and a skin of wine, and presented him at the temple of the LORD in Shiloh. 25 After the boy’s father had sacrificed the young bull, Hannah, his mother, approached Eli 26 and said: “Pardon, my lord! As you live my lord, I am the woman who stood near you here, praying to the LORD. 27 I prayed for this child, and the LORD granted my request. 28 Now I, in turn, give him to the LORD; as long as he lives, he shall be dedicated to the LORD.” She left him there;

From this passage, we see a biblical precedent for the perpetual dedication of a child to God. Hannah then goes on to worship God in the following words:

1 Samuel 2:1-2, 7-8
1 and as she worshiped the LORD, she said: "My heart exults in the LORD, my horn is exalted in my God. I have swallowed up my enemies; I rejoice in my victory. 2 There is no Holy One like the LORD; there in no Rock like our God. … 7 The LORD makes poor and makes rich, he humbles, he also exalts. 8 He raises the needy from the dust; from the ash heap he lifts up the poor, To seat them with nobles and make a glorious throne their heritage.

These words are echoed by Mary’s canticle in Luke:

Luke 1:46-55
And Mary said: “My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord; 47 my spirit rejoices in God my savior. 48 For he has looked upon his handmaid’s lowliness; behold, from now on will all ages call me blessed. 49 The Mighty One has done great things for me, and holy is his name. 50 His mercy is from age to age to those who fear him. 51 He has shown might with his arm, dispersed the arrogant of mind and heart. 52 He has thrown down the rulers from their thrones but lifted up the lowly. 53 The hungry he has filled with good things; the rich he has sent away empty. 54 He has helped Israel his servant, remembering his mercy, 55 according to his promise to our fathers, to Abraham and to his descendants forever.”

Is it possible that Mary was dedicated to God by her mother in the same way that Samuel was dedicated to God by Hannah as a perpetual Nazirite? And could it be that Mary’s own prayer was patterned after that of Hannah precisely because she had studied the story of Hannah and Samuel in light of her own perpetual dedication to God?

Yes, a very strong connection exists. Remember also that “Hannah” (the Mother of Samuel) was identified with “Anna”, the mother of Mary. Throughout most of history, the two names were spelt the same.

 

[patrick457]

Your timing is somewhat out- since the Evangelium of Pseudo-Matthew (referring to a community of virgins), was in existence long before Benedict.

Source? AFAIK Pseudo-Matthew, while based on earlier material such as the Protoevangelium, is a Latin (Western) work written around AD 600-625 - two centuries after Benedict (at least according to the study of Jan Gijsel - the most authoritative scholar on the text): the oldest manuscripts we have of it date from the 9th century. At the least, the broadest time span for the possible date of composition I’ve seen put it between the 6th-8th centuries, with the current consensus opting for the latter date.

(The supposed correspondence between St. Jerome and two bishops, Chromatius and Heliodorus, that serves as the prologue to the text in many manuscripts, is a later addition: Gijsel considers instead a variant prologue found in a few manuscripts based on the Protoevangelium of James to be the original prologue, which was in turn replaced by this pseudepigraphical introduction.)

So yes, while many of the material found in Pseudo-Matthew were already in existence before Benedict (after all, the Protoevangelium), the actual work itself was more likely to be written after his lifetime.

Pseudo-Matthew presents Mary as a model of Western monastic life (hence the suspicion that the author was a monastic), in that she is presented as ideally following the adage of ora et labora.

The major difference between the Proto-evangelium and Pseudo-Matthew is that while in the former’s version, Mary remains a virgin due to external factors (she has been protected by others), but in the latter, Mary remains a virgin by her own volition.

Explicit evidence of consecrated women living in the Temple is found in the Gospel- namely, Anna (of Luke 2), who never left the temple, serving God with prayers day and night.

First: I think the statement that Anna “did not depart from the temple, worshiping with fasting and prayer night and day” doesn’t necessarily imply that she literally lived in the Temple Mount and was there 24/7. It could be just like saying, “that old lady’s at church all the time.” Which doesn’t necessarily mean that the old lady sleeps on the pews, just that she’s always to be seen at church - even if she doesn’t really live there.

Second: Even if we suppose that Anna literally lived in the Temple, it is still not strong evidence that she was part of a group of proto-monastics. All the text says is that Anna did not depart from the temple.

 

[patrick457]

Precedent for the Mary’s Dedication to the Lord

1 Samuel 1:19-28
19 Early the next morning they worshiped before the LORD, and then returned to their home in Ramah. When Elkanah had relations with his wife Hannah, the LORD remembered her. 20 She conceived, and at the end of her term bore a son whom she called Samuel, since she had asked the LORD for him. The next time her husband Elkanah was going up with the rest of his household to offer the customary sacrifice to the LORD and to fulfill his vows, 22 Hannah did not go, explaining to her husband, “Once the child is weaned, I will take him to appear before the LORD and to remain there forever; I will offer him as a perpetual nazirite.” 23 Her husband Elkanah answered her: “Do what you think best; wait until you have weaned him. Only, may the LORD bring your resolve to fulfillment!” And so she remained at home and nursed her son until she had weaned him. 24 Once he was weaned, she brought him up with her, along with a three-year-old bull, an ephah of flour, and a skin of wine, and presented him at the temple of the LORD in Shiloh. 25 After the boy’s father had sacrificed the young bull, Hannah, his mother, approached Eli 26 and said: “Pardon, my lord! As you live my lord, I am the woman who stood near you here, praying to the LORD. 27 I prayed for this child, and the LORD granted my request. 28 Now I, in turn, give him to the LORD; as long as he lives, he shall be dedicated to the LORD.” She left him there;

From this passage, we see a biblical precedent for the perpetual dedication of a child to God. Hannah then goes on to worship God in the following words:

1 Samuel 2:1-2, 7-8
1 and as she worshiped the LORD, she said: "My heart exults in the LORD, my horn is exalted in my God. I have swallowed up my enemies; I rejoice in my victory. 2 There is no Holy One like the LORD; there in no Rock like our God. … 7 The LORD makes poor and makes rich, he humbles, he also exalts. 8 He raises the needy from the dust; from the ash heap he lifts up the poor, To seat them with nobles and make a glorious throne their heritage.

These words are echoed by Mary’s canticle in Luke:

Luke 1:46-55
And Mary said: “My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord; 47 my spirit rejoices in God my savior. 48 For he has looked upon his handmaid’s lowliness; behold, from now on will all ages call me blessed. 49 The Mighty One has done great things for me, and holy is his name. 50 His mercy is from age to age to those who fear him. 51 He has shown might with his arm, dispersed the arrogant of mind and heart. 52 He has thrown down the rulers from their thrones but lifted up the lowly. 53 The hungry he has filled with good things; the rich he has sent away empty. 54 He has helped Israel his servant, remembering his mercy, 55 according to his promise to our fathers, to Abraham and to his descendants forever.”

Is it possible that Mary was dedicated to God by her mother in the same way that Samuel was dedicated to God by Hannah as a perpetual Nazirite? And could it be that Mary’s own prayer was patterned after that of Hannah precisely because she had studied the story of Hannah and Samuel in light of her own perpetual dedication to God?

Good observation!

Yes, the Protoevangelium of James (the grand-daddy of them all) is recognized as being very heavily influenced by the story of Samuel in its recounting the story of Mary as a child. That’s why Mary’s mother is even named Anna (= Hannah).

Whoever wrote the Protoevangelium really knows the gospel of Luke apparently; Mary’s Magnificat as recorded in Luke is also patterned after Hannah’s prayer in 1 Samuel 2. The author is so familiar with Luke, he even copies some of Luke’s distinctive turn of phrases (for example, characters call other people’s names twice: “Anna, Anna” or “Salome, Salome”) and writing style (which is very ‘scriptural’ - by scriptural I mean the Old Testament).

Of course, it’s not impossible that Mary historically was dedicated by her parents to God since her childhood (maybe a kind of Nazirite vow); after all, devout Jewish parents could easily do that sort of thing.

I should still point out however that the issue of Mary’s dedication is still not the same issue as whether there were proto-nuns living in the Temple compound during the 1st century. Anna and her presence in the Temple doesn’t count as evidence.

 

[Wesrock]

Hannah’s worship and Mary’s Magnificat do have great parallels, but wouldn’t it be easier to conclude that, like Hannah, Mary was dedicating her son to the Lord instead of Mary having been dedicated? So, Hannah becomes a type of Mary and Samuel becomes a type of Jesus.

This is not to protest the tradition of Mary having been dedicated to the Lord, but the typology I see in the Magnificat seems, at first glance, to have to do with Mary dedicating Jesus as Hannah dedicated Samuel. Maybe it’s both.

 

[patrick457]

Hannah’s worship and Mary’s Magnificat do have great parallels, but wouldn’t it be easier to conclude that, like Hannah, Mary was dedicating her son to the Lord instead of Mary having been dedicated? So, Hannah becomes a type of Mary and Samuel becomes a type of Jesus.

This is not to protest the tradition of Mary having been dedicated to the Lord, but the typology I see in the Magnificat seems, at first glance, to have to do with Mary dedicating Jesus as Hannah dedicated Samuel. Maybe it’s both.

My point was more that the author of the Protoevangelium apparently observed (correctly) the Magnificat being modeled after Hannah’s hymn in 1 Samuel, as well as other places in Luke where Luke deliberately uses OT vocabulary and imagery (Luke is the only non-Jew among the four evangelists, but he is probably the most ‘biblical’ of them), and constructed the Protoevangelium in a very Lukan style.

 

[dje14338]

The Greek Orthodox church has a tradition that Mary was the granddaughter of a High Priest. However, his name does not appear in the list of High Priests. However, it is possible she belonged to one of the High Priestly Families and thus would have been brought up close to the Temple. This would explain why Elizabeth is referred to as a daughter of Arron and not just a daughter of a priest.

 

[patrick457]

The Greek Orthodox church has a tradition that Mary was the granddaughter of a High Priest. However, his name does not appear in the list of High Priests. However, it is possible she belonged to one of the High Priestly Families and thus would have been brought up close to the Temple. This would explain why Elizabeth is referred to as a daughter of Arron and not just a daughter of a priest.

That’s an interesting possibility. Although, Elizabeth’s being a ‘daughter of Aaron’ doesn’t really imply anything other than that she was from a priestly family - because Jewish priests (kohanim), not just the high priestly families, are all traditionally considered to be Aaron’s descendants.

Now in later Christian apocrypha, Zechariah is often portrayed as a high priest, but neither Luke himself nor Josephus support this. Zechariah is said to be from the division of Abijah, the eighth of the twenty-four classes of the priesthood, not one of the most prestigious. Later Christians simply imagined Zechariah to be a high priest because Luke’s description of him in the sanctuary somewhat reminded them of the high priest being in the Holy of Holies during the Day of Atonement.

I’ve seen this one theory that Mary’s grandfather was the high priest Joshua / Jesus son of Phiabi / Fabus (ca. 30-23 BC). (The one interesting thing about this idea is that it could explain Jesus’ name historically: Jews in the 1st century had a very limited pool of names to choose from and many people tended to recycle the same names within the family.) Another theory is that her grandfather was actually Antigonus II Mattathias (died 37 BC), the last Hasmonean high priest-king of Judea.

 

[dje14338]

When the Israelites returned from Babylon, there were a shortage of priests. To solve this problem, some of the Levites were made priests. Thus, when Jesus was born, not all priests were descended from Aaron.

 

[patrick457]

When the Israelites returned from Babylon, there were a shortage of priests. To solve this problem, some of the Levites were made priests. Thus, when Jesus was born, not all priests were descended from Aaron.

Source?

 

[dje14338]

It is from one of the Anchor Bible commentories on the books of the Old Testament. I need to find it on by bookcase and get the details.

 

[patrick457]

It is from one of the Anchor Bible commentories on the books of the Old Testament. I need to find it on by bookcase and get the details.

Aaronic descent was very important, because it was a requirement for being a priest or kohen. (Wisdom 45:6-24; 1 Maccabees 2:54) In other words, anyone who could not demonstrate their pedigree - anyone who could not prove they were Aaronids - ran the risk of being barred from the priesthood (Ezra 2:61-63; Nehemiah 7:63-65). Even today, even though priests are not as important as they were in Judaism, Aaronic descent is still considered to be a requirement.

 

[patrick457]

Aaronic descent was very important, because it was a requirement for being a priest or kohen. (Wisdom 45:6-24; 1 Maccabees 2:54)

Sorry, I meant Sirach 45:6-24.

 

[juliamajor]

The Latin Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew (Chapter IV) is contains a differing account. Mary was committed to a ‘contubernio virginum’ (a convent of virgins), attached to the temple. According to this source, at the age of three, she spoke with the wisdom of a person of thirty. And the angels brought her food each day.

It’s available on Google books, in the Tischendorf edition of “Evangelia Apocrypha”.

These stories are all legends- there may be elements of truth, though.

That sounds a lot like Vestal virgin. Syncretism.

 

[juliamajor]

,the only place you could have anything that echoes the ProtoEvangelium would be at Qumran , with the Essenes . They were believed to be celibate, have women and did not interact with the establishment.

 

[patrick457]

,the only place you could have anything that echoes the ProtoEvangelium would be at Qumran , with the Essenes . They were believed to be celibate, have women and did not interact with the establishment.

Well, there’s the whole issue of whether the Qumran Community were really Essenes or not. Qumran’s location fits in with where Pliny the Elder says Essenes lived, but Josephus’ description of Essenes and the rules and regulations of the Community as recorded in the Dead Sea Scrolls don’t exactly match up.

 

[patrick457]

That sounds a lot like Vestal virgin. Syncretism.

Some authors did think that the (non-Jewish) author of the Protoevangelium of James - where all the later apocrypha ultimately got this - imagined that the Temple in Jerusalem operated like pagan temples and that it had equivalents to temple virgins or priestesses, which they argue was where he pulled the idea of Mary staying in the Temple from.

To me however the idea that the Protoevangelium’s narrative of Mary’s early life is highly influenced by the biblical story of Samuel (which itself might have been influenced by the scriptural echoes in Luke’s infancy narrative) is more likely. Just as I mentioned, nowhere in the Protoevangelium is it yet said that Mary joined a community of consecrated proto-contemplatives. The implication of the narrative is that Mary is the only woman, the only girl in the Temple. That is why in the Protoevangelium, Mary’s coming-of-age was such a big deal: the priests had to convene a council and ultimately decide to marry her off because the onset of menstruation would defile the sanctity of the Temple grounds.

It was the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew that first explained Mary’s stay in the Temple as her joining a group of resident consecrated virgins. Pseudo-Matthew’s idea of temple virgins may be influenced more by the Christian nun rather than the pagan Vestal virgin. After all, as noted earlier, the work was written somewhere between the 6th-8th centuries (with the early 7th century being the most likely date), in the West, and its description of Mary’s daily routine while being a temple virgin may point to the author being familiar with St. Benedict’s rule.

 

[dje14338]

Aaronic descent was very important, because it was a requirement for being a priest or kohen. (Wisdom 45:6-24; 1 Maccabees 2:54) In other words, anyone who could not demonstrate their pedigree - anyone who could not prove they were Aaronids - ran the risk of being barred from the priesthood (Ezra 2:61-63; Nehemiah 7:63-65). Even today, even though priests are not as important as they were in Judaism, Aaronic descent is still considered to be a requirement.

My reference is Ezra-Nehemiah, Anchor Bible Vol 14, author-Jacob Myers. I could not find this book among my collection of Anchor Bible books. I may have gotten it from a library. Thus, I cannot give a page reference. However, Myers states that when the Israelis returned from the Babylon exile, there were not enough priests who could prove their descent from Aaron. [Also some priests decided to stay in Babylon.] As I remember it, they needed to show a priestly descent going back four generations. To solve this problem, a number of Levites who could show their descent going back four generations were made priests. Also, look up 2nd Samuel, Chapter 8, verse 18 in the Hebrew OT, in RSV, or in the Vulgate. It states that the sons of David were priest. If you go to the Vulgate, look at the Latin. The approved English translation is not correct.

 

[patrick457]

My reference is Ezra-Nehemiah, Anchor Bible Vol 14, author-Jacob Myers. I could not find this book among my collection of Anchor Bible books. I may have gotten it from a library. Thus, I cannot give a page reference. However, Myers states that when the Israelis returned from the Babylon exile, there were not enough priests who could prove their descent from Aaron. [Also some priests decided to stay in Babylon.] As I remember it, they needed to show a priestly descent going back four generations. To solve this problem, a number of Levites who could show their descent going back four generations were made priests.

Yeah, I cited the passage on the post you quoted. “A priestly descent” = Aaronic descent.

The priests: the sons of Jedaiah, of the house of Jeshua, 973. 37 The sons of Immer, 1,052. 38 The sons of Pashhur, 1,247. 39 The sons of Harim, 1,017.

…] Also, of the sons of the priests: the sons of Habaiah, the sons of Hakkoz, and the sons of Barzillai (who had taken a wife from the daughters of Barzillai the Gileadite, and was called by their name). These sought their registration among those enrolled in the genealogies, but they were not found there, and so they were excluded from the priesthood as unclean. The governor told them that they were not to partake of the most holy food, until there should be a priest to consult Urim and Thummim.

The houses of Jedaiah, Jeshua, Immer, Pashhur, and Harim are five of the twenty-four priestly divisions that trace their lineage from two of Aaron’s sons, Eleazar and Ithamar.

Also, look up 2nd Samuel, Chapter 8, verse 18 in the Hebrew OT, in RSV, or in the Vulgate. It states that the sons of David were priest. If you go to the Vulgate, look at the Latin. The approved English translation is not correct.

Good question. This is a textual problem that puzzles many people and there are quite a number of proposed solutions (for example, here). But even if we suppose that David’s sons did serve as priests back during his reign, the halakhic requirement of Aaronic descent was already in place after the Exile as far as we know.