Questions about Presentation at the Temple

[ag11]

What exactly is/was presentation?

Does it still happen today by Jewish people?

Was Jesus circumcised at the Temple, or before His Presentation at the Temple?

Was presentation nececssary for ALL Jewish children (male and female), or some?

Thanks

 

[DaveBj]

What exactly is/was presentation?

Does it still happen today by Jewish people?

Was Jesus circumcised at the Temple, or before His Presentation at the Temple?

Was presentation nececssary for ALL Jewish children (male and female), or some?

Thanks

Taking your questions individually:

1. The requirement for this is found in Exodus chapter 13.
2. I don’t know.
3. Circumcision was at the age of 8 days and would have taken place where they were staying in Bethlehem. Presentation was 32 days later, at the age of 40 days.
4. Only the males.

 

[ag11]

Taking your questions individually:

1. Only the males.

But isn’t today the Presentation of the Blessed Virgin Mary?

 

[DaveBj]

But isn’t today the Presentation of the Blessed Virgin Mary?

Read the chapter in Exodus. According to the Torah, only firstborn males were to be presented and either sacrificed (clean animals) or redeemed (unclean animals and humans). There is nothing in the Old Testament about presenting females.

 

[FaustinaJulia]

An ancient tradition holds that Our Lady was conducted by her parents to the Temple at Jerusalem to be consecrated entirely to God when she was three years old. This meeting of the ancient Temple of God and the new “Temple of the Savior” reminds us of the continuity between the Old Law and the New. For Mary, the Mother of God’s new People, was the personification and completion of all that was good in the Old Testament. Her Magnificat shows that she was steeped in the Scriptures and Law of her fathers: Even as He spoke to our fathers – to Abraham and to his posterity forever"(St. Luke 1:55).

 

[Nelka]

Kind of like baptism?

 

[TimothyH]

Mary was “presented” to the high priest at the temple by her parents Joachim and Anne. She was three years of age and was to be consecrated as a temple virgin.

This was different from the presentation required of all male children. God saved the first born males of Israel during the first passover on the night before the great exodus out of Egypt. For this reason every male child henceforth was Gods by right and parents would “redeem” their first born male child with an offering.

As a female, the Mosaic law did not require that Mary be presented at the temple as an infant. She was presented to the High Priest Zacharias (John the Baptist’s father) at the age of three to become a temple virgin. Mary “full of grace” was brought into the Holy of Holies where she danced before God. She stayed in the temple until she was nine years old.

Western Catholics call the feast “The Presentation of Mary” but it doesn’t do justice to the event. Eastern Catholics and Orthodox call it the “Entrance of the Theotokos to the Temple.” Theotokos is Greek for God Bearer. The Spirit of God which dwelt in the Temple descended upon Mary and she herself became the Holy of Holies where the God/man Jesus dwelt for nine months. It is the second highest Marian feast day in the Orthodox calendar.

oca.org/orthodoxy/the-orthodox-faith/worship/the-church-year/entrance-of-the-theotokos-to-the-temple

goarch.org/special/listen_learn_share/vmpresentation/index_html

-Tim-

 

[patrick457]

Mary was “presented” to the high priest at the temple by her parents Joachim and Anne. She was three years of age and was to be consecrated as a temple virgin.

This was different from the presentation required of all male children. God saved the first born males of Israel during the first passover on the night before the great exodus out of Egypt. For this reason every male child henceforth was Gods by right and parents would “redeem” their first born male child with an offering.

As a female, the Mosaic law did not require that Mary be presented at the temple as an infant. She was presented to the High Priest Zacharias (John the Baptist’s father) at the age of three to become a temple virgin. Mary “full of grace” was brought into the Holy of Holies where she danced before God. She stayed in the temple until she was nine years old.

Western Catholics call the feast “The Presentation of Mary” but it doesn’t do justice to the event. Eastern Catholics and Orthodox call it the “Entrance of the Theotokos to the Temple.” Theotokos is Greek for God Bearer. The Spirit of God which dwelt in the Temple descended upon Mary and she herself became the Holy of Holies where the God/man Jesus dwelt for nine months. It is the second highest Marian feast day in the Orthodox calendar.

oca.org/orthodoxy/the-orthodox-faith/worship/the-church-year/entrance-of-the-theotokos-to-the-temple

goarch.org/special/listen_learn_share/vmpresentation/index_html

-Tim-

Of course you have to remember that the popular story ultimately derives from the Protoevangelium of James - which, as a later work, should be taken with a grain of salt. Mary’s parents could very well have dedicated her to God in some way, but not necessarily in the way the Protoevangelium’s story describes it. (AFAIK I don’t think there were even temple virgins in Judaism; that’s more of a Greek and Roman thing.)

Also, Luke doesn’t say that Zechariah was the high priest (it’s just later Christian imagination); he was just a priest “of the division of Abijah” who was on temple duty at the time of the annunciation of John the Baptist’s birth. In fact, Josephus doesn’t list a high priest named ‘Zechariah’ for the relevant time period. The high priests during the last years of the reign of Herod the Great were:

Ananelus (37-36 BC; first high priest appointed by Herod the Great)
Aristobulus (III 36 BC; the last Hasmonean and brother of Herod’s second wife Mariame - he, erm, ‘accidentally’ drowned)
Ananelus (restored) (36-30 BC)
Joshua (Jesus) son of Phiabi (30-23 BC)
Simon son of Boethus (23-5 BC; Herod married his daughter Mariamne and began rebuilding the temple during his high priesthood)
Matthias son of Theophilus (5-4 BC)
Joazar son of Boethus (4 BC; last high priest appointed by Herod)
Eleazar ben Boethus (4-3 BC; the first high priest appointed by Herod’s son Archelaus)

 

[AmbroseSJ]

patrick457:

Also, Luke doesn’t say that Zechariah was the high priest (it’s just later Christian imagination);

Hold on there professor! Luke also does not NOT say it, so that comment is unwarranted as obvious. As to Christian imagination, that sounds dismissive, but can you be certain? As you said the story appears to be based on the Protoevangelium, but that is really as far as anyone can go in their assertions. I am fairly sure I read somewhere that the Second Temple DID have dedicated virgins (but not perpetual virgins.)

 

[DaveBj]

Hold on there professor! Luke also does not NOT say it, so that comment is unwarranted as obvious. As to Christian imagination, that sounds dismissive, but can you be certain? As you said the story appears to be based on the Protoevangelium, but that is really as far as anyone can go in their assertions. I am fairly sure I read somewhere that the Second Temple DID have dedicated virgins (but not perpetual virgins.)

Now, there’s an authoritative statement

 

[steve53]

Dedicated virgins at the Second Temple?

Lol.

The Jewish Priests were all married. You think their wives would stand for them going off to work at the Temple every day knowing it was full of female virgins- dedicated or not?

 

[patrick457]

Hold on there professor! Luke also does not NOT say it, so that comment is unwarranted as obvious. As to Christian imagination, that sounds dismissive, but can you be certain? As you said the story appears to be based on the Protoevangelium, but that is really as far as anyone can go in their assertions.

Of course, Luke doesn’t say that Zechariah wasn’t high priest either. But as I mentioned, there is no second Temple period high priest named ‘Zechariah’ in Josephus. I know some people will claim that Zechariah could have very well been high priest during the gap in the Josephus’ record between 3 BC and AD 6 (Archelaus’ reign), but the Protoevangelium of James, our earliest source to claim this, has Zechariah already being high priest when Mary was twelve years old.

If we suppose Jesus was born during the final years of Herod the Great (7-4 BC), going by Josephus then the high priest during that time would have been either Matthias son of Theophilus (5-4 BC) or Joazar son of Boethus (Matthias’s wife’s brother, 4 BC) - the last high priest appointed by Herod before his death. And, if we backtrack from that some thirteen or more years (supposing Mary was age sixteen when she became betrothed to Joseph and gave birth to Jesus - as per the Protoevangelium), we will arrive at the high priesthood of Simon (son of) Boethus (23-5 BC).

You could attempt to identify ‘Zechariah’ as actually being any of these two high priests. (You cannot count Simon, since while Zechariah was supposed to be barren, Simon actually had children - a daughter of his (Mariamne) even became Herod the Great’s third wife.) Now, Josephus does mention that Matthias son of Theophilus had a one-day replacement: because Matthias had, erm, ‘intercourse’ with his wife in a dream the night before he was to serve in Yom Kippur, a relative of his named Joseph son of Ellemus had to act as stand-in. But, even if somehow you try to identify Zechariah with Joseph son of Ellemus, it would contradict the Protoevangelium’s scenario where Zechariah is at least high priest for four years (from when Mary was twelve up to when he was sixteen).

The idea of Zechariah being high priest is something already found in the Protoevangelium of James. It is in the 4th century that we see different Christian writers expressing that Zechariah was high priest and received his annunciation in the Holy of Holies, either on Yom Kippur (the Day of Atonement) or on Sukkot, which they often confuse with one another. Given the widespread attestation of this belief among Christians, it probably arose earlier than the 4th century.

You might say that Luke does encourage this idea in a way, because he has Zechariah burn incense, writes as if Zechariah was the only person within the sanctuary, and mentions people praying outside the sanctuary - so automatically peoples’ minds would default to the biblical descriptions of the high priest offering incense by himself during the Day of Atonement.

But on the other hand, just because something is widely believed (and just because something has beautiful symbolism) does not automatically have to mean that it is historically factual. Luke could very well have described Zechariah’s actions as if they were the actions of the high priest during Yom Kippur, but it’s not automatic indication that Zechariah was indeed a high priest - in other words, Luke’s possible description is more theological than literal.

Personally, I think that there is no need to imagine Zechariah being the high priest, just because he is said to offer incense. Luke mentions that Gabriel appeared “on the right side of the altar of incense.” This altar was located in front of the Holy of Holies. While only the high priest could enter the Holy of Holies, the altar of incense is in the outer sanctuary, and is about as far as ordinary priests could go when approaching the divine. Incense was offered in the temple everyday at morning and at twilight; it wasn’t just a Yom Kippur specific event. And while only Zechariah and the angel is described in the scene, it does not necessarily have to follow that Zechariah was alone in the sanctuary.

The Mishnah specifies that at least five priests were required for the service: those who tended the menorah - the lampstand - and prepared the altar, the one who will offer incense, and his assistant. After doing their job, said five priests would go outside the sanctuary, standing on the steps of the porch and, along with other priests, confer the priestly blessing (Numbers 6:24-26) on the people. If we suppose this tradition is accurate, then Zechariah could have been one of these five priests; the reason the people would have been surprised at his delay (1:21) may have been because only four of the five priests came out.

I am fairly sure I read somewhere that the Second Temple DID have dedicated virgins (but not perpetual virgins.)

Can you give us that ‘somewhere’?

 

[AmbroseSJ]

patrick457:

Can you give us that ‘somewhere’?

Although I haven’t been able to track down my original source, I did find this (with ease )

This substantiates the claims of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church who claim that the Blessed Virgin Mary was presented to the Temple and served there from the age of three until the age of fourteen. To claim that Temple virgins are a myth of celibacy-crazed Catholic bishops does not hold up. Scripture and Jewish tradition records that there were specially commissioned virgins associated with the Temple. We may not know much about them, but we know that they existed.

 

[patrick457]

Although I haven’t been able to track down my original source, I did find this (with ease )

To be honest, I’m still not convinced. First of all (general thoughts) I think Mr. Marshall kind of skips all over the place - from the Old Testament to late Rabbinic sources - just to find supposed evidence for cloistered virgins in the Temple.

There has been some doubt as to whether their were really consecrated Jewish virgins at the Temple. In my previous post I referenced the first-century Jewish historian Josephus in support of “Temple virgins” in Jerusalem, but I fear that this cannot be substantiated. Jimmy Akin asked me for the citation and I cannot find it. One would assume that it would be in Book 5 of the Jewish Wars of Josephus. There Josephus mentions cloisters, but he does not tell us who lived in them. That’s as close as Josephus gets.

I think the problem here is Mr. Marshall’s understanding of the word ‘cloister’ (the word used in the William Whiston translation). The Greek word here is stoa, and actually refers to the covered ‘porticoes’ or ‘colonnades’ surrounding the Temple complex. You should not think so much of closed convents but roofed walkways where people passed around, met, talk and taught. One of these porches was the Royal Stoa (actually more of a public hall or basilica) which also functioned as the temple’s marketplace, and thus, one of the likely candidates for the spot where Jesus drove the moneychangers out. The eastern stoa is called ‘Solomon’s Portico’, because it was traditionally linked with King Solomon (John 10:23; War 5.185).

Exodus 38:8 mentions women who “watch (צָבָא) at the door of the tabernacle.”

“Now Heli was very old, and he heard all that his sons did to all Israel: and how they lay with the women that waited (צָבָא) at the door of the tabernacle:” (1 Samuel 2:22, D-R)

In both of the verses above, Hebrew verb for “watch” and “waited” is the same. It is the Hebrew word צָבָא, which is the same verb used to described the liturgical activity of the Levites (see Num 4:23; 8:24). This corresponds to the Latin translation in the Clementine Vulgate, which relates that these women “observabant” at the temple doors – another liturgical reading.

So these women are not simply hanging out around the Temple, looking for men, gossiping, or chatting about the weather. These are pious women devoted to a liturgical function. In fact, the Court of Women might exist formally for these special “liturgical women.”

Mr. Marshall got something correct here: the verb translated as “waited”/“served” (or “assembled”) is used either of Levites ‘serving’ in sacred places or in a military context - ‘standing’ in ranks. It could very well be that these women were indeed performing a sacred, liturgical function, but let’s be honest, we don’t know what they exactly did, whether they were a special order or just a group of pious laywomen. (To put it in modern/Catholic terms, we aren’t sure if they were nuns or a group of really dedicated parishioners. )

Now personally, I think he’s reading too much into the fact that there was a ‘Court of the Women’ in Herod’s temple. (Which is not the Tabernacle nor the sanctuary at Shiloh.) IMHO it was called that way simply because that was about as far as Jewish women could go, just as ‘the Court of the Gentiles’ was about as far as non-Jews could enter and the ‘Court of the Israelites’ was the maximum limit for lay Jewish men.

 

[patrick457]

And the virgins also that were shut up, came forth, some to {High Priest} Onias, and some to the walls, and others looked out of the windows. And all holding up their hands towards heaven, made supplication. (2 Macc 3:19-20)

Here are virgins that are shut up. In the Greek it is “αἱ δὲ κατάκλειστοι τῶν παρθένων” or “the shut up ones of the virgins.” In this passage the Holy Spirit refers not to all the virgins of Jerusalem, but to a special set of virgins, that is, those virgins who had the privilege and right to be in the presence of the High Priest and address him. It’s rather ridiculous to think that young girls would have general access to the High Priest of Israel. However, if these virgins had a special liturgical role at the Temple, it becomes clear that they would both address the High Priest Onias and would also be featured as an essential part of the intense supplication in the Temple at this moment of crisis.

I’ll disagree here with Mr. Marshall’s interpretation over the interpretation of the ‘closed-in virgins’. In Jewish thought, unmarried maidens are ideally to be protected by their family (i.e. the father) by keeping them out of the public eye. This is an idea which enjoys widespread attestation, especially in sources that are - like 2 Maccabees - from the Diaspora (3 Maccabees 1:18; Sirach 42:11 (“Keep strict watch over a headstrong daughter…”); Philo, Flaccus 89, The Special Laws 3.169; 4 Maccabees 18:7 (“I was a virgin and did not leave my father’s house…”)).

I think the whole point of the passage is missed here. Just to review the context: there was this guy named “Simon, of the tribe of Benjamin” who had a disagreement with the high priest Onias III about the administration of the city market. Simon, apparently (sorry for the slang) pissed off with Onias, ratted to the governor of Coelesyria and Phoenicia, Apollonius of Tarsus, that there was an untold sum of money in the temple treasury. Apollonius in turn reported it to the king, Seleucus IV Philopator (c. 218-175 BC). Seleucus delegated an official, Heliodorus, to confiscate the money under pretense of making an “inspection of the cities of Coelesyria and Phoenicia.” When Heliodorus got to Jerusalem, Onias explained to him the truth of the amount of money in the treasury, but Heliodorus had to fulfill the king’s orders. The whole city was thrown into panic and anguish at this outrage, to the point even those virgins who would have been shut in (by their families) came out. The point that was situation was that dire.

There was no little distress throughout the whole city. The priests prostrated themselves before the altar in their priestly garments and called toward heaven upon him who had given the law about deposits, that he should keep them safe for those who had deposited them. To see the appearance of the high priest was to be wounded at heart, for his face and the change in his color disclosed the anguish of his soul. For terror and bodily trembling had come over the man, which plainly showed to those who looked at him the pain lodged in his heart. People also hurried out of their houses in crowds to make a general supplication because the holy place was about to be brought into contempt. Women, girded with sackcloth under their breasts, thronged the streets. Some of the maidens who were kept indoors ran together to the gates, and some to the walls, while others peered out of the windows. And holding up their hands to heaven, they all made entreaty. There was something pitiable in the prostration of the whole populace and the anxiety of the high priest in his great anguish.

Of course, their prayer did not unanswered.

I’ll continue when I have more time.

 

[patrick457]

Well, I’ll continue.

There is further testimony of temple virgins in the traditions of the Jews. In the Mishnah, it is recorded that there were 82 consecrated virgins who wove the veil of the Temple:

“The veil of the Temple was a palm-length in width. It was woven with seventy-two smooth stitches each made of twenty-four threads. The length was of forty cubits and the width of twenty cubits. Eighty-two virgins wove it. Two veils were made each year and three hundred priests were needed to carry it to the pool” (Mishna Shekalim 8, 5-6).

We find another reference to the “women who made the veils for the Temple…baked the showbread…prepared the incense” (Babylonian Talmud Kethuboth 106a).

I’m afraid Mr. Marshall is again reading too much into the data. Let’s read carefully what the Mishnah says. It just says that eighty-two young girls (= virgins) wove the temple veil. It doesn’t explicitly say whether these were some sort of proto-nuns who lived in the temple complex or not.

Even more, the first century document by the name of the Apocalypse of Baruch (sometimes called “2 Baruch”) describes the Temple virgins living in the Temple as weavers of the holy veil:

“And you virgins who weave byssus and silk, and gold from Ophir, in haste pick it all up and throw it in the fire that it will return it to its Author, and that the flame will take it back to its Creator, from fear that the enemy might seize it” (2 Baruch 10:19).

The Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch was probably written in the late 1st century, maybe just before the temple was destroyed in AD 70, and so we have a more firmer, more contemporary source for the idea that young virgins were involved in temple embroidery than the Mishnah (which was only first codified decades after the temple was already gone). But again, this passage only infers that girls spun and wove for the temple - it doesn’t necessarily say they were “living in the Temple” as Mr. Marshall asserts.

By itself, the Mishnah’s testimony is not enough solid proof for the existence of female weavers (note: not consecrated virgins) for the temple, because (1) the Mishnah is a late source - while it is probably reliable in some areas, it is a bit questionable in others; (2) temples in antiquity (not just the Jewish temple) usually employed female weavers; and (3) there is a possible allusion to women weaving the very first temple curtain in the desert in Exodus 35:26. So one can argue that this detail could have simply been invented by the later Rabbis: they saw women working for (non-Jewish) temples and knew the passage in Exodus, so they could have inferred that the same thing could have held true for the Jerusalem temple. That’s why 2 Apocalypse of Baruch is important: it’s not strictly a ‘historical’ source, but it’s hard to imagine that the author of that apocalypse could have invented that detail. So yeah, it’s possible that as in other cultures at the time, the temple staff included maidens whose job was to weave for the temple.

 

[patrick457]

(Continued)

Just a little digression here.

Tractate Sheqalim lists a number of temple officials who were on the payroll of the institution. Among its clauses (Sheqalim 2.6) are included the female weavers of the temple, who are said to receive payment for their work “from the contribution of the chamber.” Other personnel who are said to receive salary from the temple coffers (i.e. the temple tax) include the guardians of seventh year produce, the House of Avtinos, who baked the showbread, and the House of Garmo, who prepared the incense.

Now here’s the interesting thing. In Sheqalim 5.1 you get a list of names and functions of various officers in the temple. The House of Garmo and the House of Avtinos are named, but what’s curious is that concerning the temple curtain, it is only stated there matter-of-factly that “Eleazar (was responsible) for the curtain.” We don’t know who this Eleazar this; whether the Mishnah claims that he was responsible for the making of the temple veil or whether he was just the supervisor; or whether he was historical or fictional.

Where it gets more fishy is the passage cited by Mr. Marshall above: Sheqalim 8.5-6. In most manuscripts, instead of the word for “maidens” you actually have the word “ten thousand/myriad,” which does not make any real sense. (It’s just the difference of a single letter: ריבות rivot ‘maidens’ to ריבוא rivo ‘ten thousand’.) Coupled by the fact that an important manuscript does have rivot here (not to mention that commentators seem to take the reading “virgins” for granted), it seems that the “ten thousand/myriad” is a corruption, maybe by someone who wanted to obscure the presence of female temple staff. The thing is, however, this mention of “eighty-two maidens” weaving the temple veil is actually a baraita, a tradition not incorporated in the Mishnah itself.

So, some scholars actually claim that you can see layers of editing in the Mishnah. Historically there could have been a group of young female weavers who belonged to the temple’s payroll as part of its maintenance staff, as testified by the Apocalypse of Baruch and some parts of tractate Sheqalim. They were not situated in the highest posts among the temple officials, but since it was a position held exclusively by women, it could have put them in an influential position. Years after the temple was destroyed, when its various functions were but dim recollections, someone who held an ideal picture of this institution edited the tradition so as to obliterate these women’s historical roles (hence the mention of an ‘Eleazar’). Then, a non-Mishnaic tradition about the eighty-two young girl weavers later got included into the Mishnah, but unfortunately, some copyist altered the reading, so that the women were again censored out of the text.

Going back on topic.

I think Mr. Marshall got his image of “female weavers” = “consecrated virgins” from the Protoevangelium of James, where Mary is dedicated to God, lives in the temple (note that the narrative only explicitly states her to be living there; it is not mentioned whether there were other girls like her); and is one of the maidens who weave the temple veil. But even there, the virgins chosen to weave the curtain are apparently not cloistered in the temple: “seven undefiled virgins of the family of David” were fetched by temple officials for the task, with Mary (who at this point in the narrative had been betrothed to Joseph and is now living with him), who was also a Davidid, being the eighth. After being recalled to the temple and having the true purple and the scarlet yarns fall to her by lot, it was in “her house” (presumably Joseph’s) that Mary began to weave the curtain. Mary’s weaving the curtain in the Protoevangelium is the really author’s emphasizing that she was a virgin. And the (possibly non-Jewish) author did not necessarily need to look at Jewish tradition for that, since the emphasis on the virginity of sacred textile weavers are evident in other cultures as well.

Note that the Protoevangelium contradicts the baraita in the number of women involved: eight maidens were specially chosen for the task in the Protoevangelium, while in Sheqalim it is a committee of eighty-two girls. While it is inferred that the *PoJ’*s virgins went home to spin their threads, the baraita claims that the weavers did the work in an area somewhere in the temple complex known as the Chamber of the Veil.

As for the Pesikta Rabbati (which mentions the temple weavers throwing themselves into the fire when the Romans came), we are on more shaky ground because it is much later, later than even the Mishnah (the work dates from the mid-9th century).

 

[patrick457]

(Last post of the series)
I pretty much agree with what a commenter on the blog post (named ‘Mitchell’) wrote.

Even if there were a fairly organized group of consecrated virgin woman that served at the temple, there still would be a large lack of reliable evidence that mary was one of these. As I commented on your previous post, the Protoevangelium of James is not a strong source at all; nor is Sirach.

However, the arguments given above for there being this sort of collection of virgins serving at the temple this are shaky at best. Many commentators take Exodus 38 and 1 Sam 2:22 to be referring to levite women doing their priestly duties (see Num. 8:24 for use of the same verb and a clear proclamation for this sort of thing).

The citation from 2 Macc. 3 is not at all referring to some sort of group of virgins serving at the temple, rather it is concerning the young women who ran from their houses of their parents in mourning and prayer (along with other people as well). There is no sufficient evidence in this passage that they are special, consecrated virgins that served at the temple. Additionally, this passage, in general, is one portion of Maccabees that ought to be suspected of using hyperbole (which this work often does).

The citation from 2 Baruch is merely referring to unmarried women who spin silk. How does this entail that they serve at/live at the temple at all? All the Author is doing is telling all sorts of people how futile the situation is of Zion. He references the virgins as one type of people he wants to instruct in how to respond to this futility. In addition to this, is this text to be trusted really at all? Both the Jews and the early Christians rejected this text, and even in the very chapter cited, the work even deduces non-Christian views concerning the messiah(!). In my opinion, one would be better off scrounging the Shepherd of Hermes for references to virgins serving at a temple (which, in that work, was actually the Church) and inferring that this derived from some previous tradition (but this sort of argument would still be very weak).

Lastly, the reference to the Mishnah merely says that young women sewed the veil. It does not say that these women were specially consecrated or lived at the temple, etc. For all we know, these women were called upon merely because they volunteered (or were volunteered by their families) because they were yet unmarried and had more time to do so than the older women.

One final note about the entire argument: When one is trying to defend their position, especially one that his highly debated, it behooves the person positing a claim to not merely show that their position is theoretically possible but to also demonstrate its cogency. AT each step of the way, defense of these sorts of claims about Mary are found to be lacking if one just examines the evidence for themselves. Irrelevant citations are lifted -merely because they mention “young women” and the “temple” close together- to give an air that they are pertinent, when they do not fit with the issue at all. In other places, works not accepted by the earliest Christians are cited as key evidence. And in other places, Christians hundreds of years after Christ are cited as authoritative who believed and propounding these Marian doctrines much more fully -yet these very Christians either fail to cite the their own most fundamental grounding for having these views or the ones they do cite fall far short of demanding true consideration (e.g. the Protoevangelium of James).

Were there female temple weavers in Herod’s temple? Possibly. Was Mary one of them? We don’t know; she could have been, she could have not - in the lack of concrete evidence one guess is as good as another. Were these female temple weavers some form of cloistered proto-nuns? We can’t be totally sure of course, but I’ll bet on quite unlikely - at least Mr. Marshall’s arguments to prove it not too strong IMHO.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

patrick457:

Were there female temple weavers in Herod’s temple? Possibly. Was Mary one of them? We don’t know; she could have been, she could have not - in the lack of concrete evidence one guess is as good as another. Were these female temple weavers some form of cloistered proto-nuns? We can’t be totally sure of course, but I’ll bet on quite unlikely - at least Mr. Marshall’s arguments to prove it not too strong IMHO.

You’ve expended quite a lot of verbiage in your last 5 lengthy posts to basically say, you disagree with another scholar (big surprise) and you find his arguments unconvincing (again, big surprise)

My question is this: What exactly (in your opinion) is the Church celebrating on November 21st? A feast that is most ancient in the Universal Church. You have argued away the entire premise of the feast it would seem.

Secondly, you are probably mistaking the intent of Marshall’s arguments. NO ONE (including Marshall, from what I can gather) is trying to establish the existence of a dedicated “convent of nuns” in the Second Temple. But rather a dedicated group of young maidens/virgins who after completing their service, would leave the temple and marry (exactly as the Blessed Virgin Mary did.)

For example, It may have been a two way street. The child was provided for and educated in the Law and the Prophets (to the degree proper to a young Jewish maiden) and she provided a service to the temple in exchange until a fitting age when she was released.

What everyone can agree on, is that hard evidence is sketchy at best, other than what the Church has told us (in the form of her Liturgies.)

 

[TimothyH]

We celebrate the Holy Spirit who dwelt in the Temple.

We celebrate Mary, the spouse of the Holy Spirit and their “meeting” in the Temple.

We celebrate that Mary became the Ark of the Covenant, the dwelling place of God.

We celebrate that Mary herself became the Temple of the Holy Spirit. For the first time in history man no longer had to travel to the Temple to see God but God himself came to dwell within man. We celebrate that Mary brought the Holy Spirit with her out of the Temple.

We celebrate that God made all these things happen according to his divine plan out of love for us.

These are some of the things we celebrate.

-Tim-