Were there consecrated virgins at the Jewish Temple?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Savagedds
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
But neither of these two groups had anything to do with the Temple. neither were priests or involved in Temple services. ANd in fact the article seems to indicate that the group came about during the Diaspora, which would be after the Temple was destroyed.
 
Thanks Dan - great info.

You gave me an idea. Anyone know what were standard Jewish practises and customs for dealing with orphaned children? Were these adopted by the community or taken in by a charitable family? I thought that the rich tradition of Jewish hospitality and charity would also necessitate giving alms and goods to the Temple not only for atonement but for acts of goodwill. It seems to be that with the Temple being the center of Jewish life that this was a natural place for charity and alms to come together to provide assistance to widows and orphans. I don’t know enough about Jewish social tradition but my instincts are telling me it would be a super high bet that the Temple officials had the means and the social motive to make the equivalent of a youth and widow hostel. If true it is not a far stretch to speculate that a young child or widow out of gratitude for being given room and board would enslave themselves out of indebtedness to serve in small acts of charity around the temple to repay the kindness. It would also follow that such might also take a private oath of celibacy to bind themselves to this service as well.

Just ideas.

James
 
I don’t know if there were any institutions associated with Orphans and the Temple. Its a good question.
 
Valke2 said:
But neither of these two groups had anything to do with the Temple. neither were priests or involved in Temple services. ANd in fact the article seems to indicate that the group came about during the Diaspora, which would be after the Temple was destroyed.
Click to expand...

There is also another Temple 🙂 - the one at Elephantiné in Egypt, which was destroyed about 410 BCE, rebuilt, & destroyed again in 77 CE.​

Maybe it’s worth looking there instead of in Jerusalem. The virgins-in-the-Temple idea may even have come about on the assumption that because some other cults had dedicated virgins, Judaism must have also had them. A Gentile reader familiar with the Temple nethinim in the Tanakh may have thought there “had to be” Temple virgins too, especially in view of Luke 2 as quoted by OPs. The Protevangelium of James is fairly like Luke in tone, & chapter 2 of Luke may have been an inspiration to the author of the PoJ.
 
Gottle_of_Geer said:

There is also another Temple 🙂 - the one at Elephantiné in Egypt, which was destroyed about 410 BCE, rebuilt, & destroyed again in 77 CE.​

Maybe it’s worth looking there instead of in Jerusalem. The virgins-in-the-Temple idea may even have come about on the assumption that because some other cults had dedicated virgins, Judaism must have also had them. A Gentile reader familiar with the Temple nethinim in the Tanakh may have thought there “had to be” Temple virgins too, especially in view of Luke 2 as quoted by OPs. The Protevangelium of James is fairly like Luke in tone, & chapter 2 of Luke may have been an inspiration to the author of the PoJ.
Click to expand...
All of this is interesting, but even if there were temple virgins in Jerusalem, I still don’t see any reason to suppose Mary was one of them. And if the whole point of the temple virgin assertion is to explain why Joseph did not insist on relations with Mary (which I think it is), how would that matter once she left the temple to have a child? To be clear, I am not denying perpetual virginity in any way, but I have seen the temple virgin assertion used to defend it and I think that is a mistake.
 
I thank God for your observations. weather there were temple virgins or not should not bother you because how will this improve your fellowship with God the Father? or if there were , what about you? the issue is not them or him or her but you, whats the Lords will to you individually? has he called you to be a virgin temple? if not , that should not bother you. if He has, you then have no option but do as He says
Again , why have people read and believed this historical books conserning religion and saints but are not reading the word of God which is calling you to be asaint. We argue on religion, mary, temples activities etc but neglect the reality who is GOD. where are questions about Jesus eg if God spoke audibly to servants of God, why is He not talking audibly to me or you? this is just an example of awise mans question who desire solutions from God Himself not thru men, history or philosophies.
The answer to my above question is ; Yes , God is still speaking audibly to people today as in those days when you realise the sweetness of trusting God the Father than our church fathers or pastors.
 
I believe GOD still talks to us but throgh the Holy Catholic Church via the Holy Father. God set a governing body to run His visable church from the old testement to present day. but this is getting away from temple virgins
 
You say that God will listen and is speaking to us through a holy father, my question is , who is your holy father? is He JEHOVAH or areligious leader? Jesus himself said, do not have any fathers on earth but one Father who is in heaven!
 
if you don’t have an earthly father how did you come into being?
 
what is jehovah? who made up that word? do some research on it, it is a word somebody made up .
 
celticcrusader said:
what is jehovah? who made up that word? do some research on it, it is a word somebody made up .
Click to expand...
It came directly out of an illiterate and incompetent interpretation of sacred scripture financed by an obscure haberdasher in the USA in 1872 who founded Jehovah’s Witness. They did not know that the Jews dropped the vowels when they wrote God’s Holy names in scripture as a gesture of respect. This was incredibly pathetic since this was well known by The Catholic Church for 1800 years prior to the fabrication of the JW doctrine.
Encyclopedia Britannica 1953:
The word “Jehovah” means the God of Israel. In reality, “…(it) is an error resulting among Christians from combining the consonants Yhwh (Jhvh) with the vowels of 'adhonay, “Lord,” which the Jews in reading the Scriptures substitute for the sacred name, commonly called the tetragramation as containing four consonants.”
Click to expand...
James
 
Orphans in Judaism were adopted by others, likely extended family, Moses and Ester were adopted.
annomundi.com/bible/virgin_birth.htm
angelfire.com/or/originsnsw/godswill.html
jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=852&letter=A&search=adoption

Later, the church took care of orphans and widows,

James 1:27
Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.

I Tim 5, younger widows remarry, older care of church.

1 Timothy 5:8
If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.

The Authorized Version, in all cases but one, renders “yatom,” the Hebrew word for “orphan,” by “fatherless”; the exception being in Lam. v. 3, where “yetomim” is rendered “orphans,” the word being followed by the expression “and fatherless.” Orphans are represented throughout the Bible as helpless beings; and therefore the Pentateuch reiterates continually the command to render justice to orphans. In the contrary case their oppressor is to expect the severest punishment (see Ex. xxii. 21-23, and elsewhere). God Himself is termed “the father of the fatherless” (Ps. lxviii. 6 [A. V. 5]). When Job wished to point out the excessive wickedness of his companions he said: “Ye would overwhelm the fatherless” (Job vi. 27). In other instances Job speaks of the wicked who are not afraid to commit injustice even toward orphans (ib. xxiv. 9; xxxi. 17, 21).
jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=142&letter=O&search=orphan

It appears the whole community cared for the widows and orphans,

Deuteronomy 14:29
so that the Levites (who have no allotment or inheritance of their own) and the aliens, the fatherless and the widows who live in your towns may come and eat and be satisfied, and so that the LORD your God may bless you in all the work of your hands.
 
Good idea CentralFLJames, I might have to do that someday. But I would like to reply to Valke2 and anyone else who is truly interested in this subject, so here goes:

The "Protoevangelium of James” written in the 2nd century describes many of the ancient Jewish laws concerning the Temple. Women were always separated from the men and had their own space within the Temple complex. Since the sacrifice in the Temple was a blood offering, due to women’s menstruation, they were not permitted to enter into the areas that were considered to be holy or sacred because they would “defile” it.

To save you all the trouble, I got out my copy of the “Protoevangelium of James.” The text says that the Virgin Mary was consecrated to the Temple at 3 years of age and that she was “wise beyond her years.” Here is an actual quote from this text:

"The priest placed her on the third step of the altar, and the Lord God put grace upon the child. And Mary was in the Temple nurtured like a dove and received food from the hand of an angel. When she was 12 years old, there took place a council of priests saying: “Behold, Mary has become 12 years old in the Temple of the Lord. What then shall we do with her, that she may not pollute the sanctuary of the Lord?” And they said to the high priest: “You stand at the altar of the Lord; enter (the sanctuary) and pray concerning her, and what the Lord shall reveal to you we will do.”

It is said that God revealed to the priests that Mary should be betrothed to Joseph of the House of David. Mary left the Temple and continued her work at home as a consecrated virgin by weaving garments worn by the priests used in sacred rituals. This is depicted in many paintings of the of the Annunciation that show Mary weaving cloth when Gabriel appears to her announcing that she was chosen by God to bear the Messiah. You all have probably seen many paintings and pictures of the Annunciation but didn’t pay close attention to the details.

Byzantine Catholics (Eastern Rite) consider "The Presentation of the Virgin Mary in the Temple” to be a significant Holy Day and are expected to attend liturgy on that day. Special prayers are said by the priest and special hymns are sung in response by the congregation that commemorate this most important event in the life of Mary, Mother of God (Theotokos).

The rite of Baptism in a Byzantine Catholic Church is patterned similarly to “Mary’s Presentation in the Temple.” It is a very special ceremony all on it’s own that can take place before, during or after the Divine Liturgy. (This is at the discretion of the priest.) The baptism ceremony is about 45 minutes long where very solemn prayers and special rituals take place.

The ceremony begins in the very back of the church outside of the sanctuary where the priest performs the rite of exorcism. After the exorcism, the Godparents enter into the sanctuary of the church with the child where the rituals continue. Later, they carry the child up to the Tetrapod, which is a small table that sits on the floor in the middle of the aisle of the church outside the Holy Doors. The altar is behind the Holy Doors where the tabernacle and altar reside. (I might mention that the priest offers the Divine Liturgy with his back to the people and faces the tabernacle while at the altar.). At the Tetrapod, the child is baptized with holy water and receives the 1st sacrament of the Church. The priest then annoints the child with the oil of Chrismation. This bestows on the child the sacrament of confirmation.

After the Chrismation ceremony is complete, the child is clothed in white garments that are very ornate. The Godparents place the child in the arms of the priest who takes the child through the Holy Doors and approaches the altar. The priest faces the altar and lifts the child up to God. Then he lays the child, now pure and holy clothed in his baptismal garments on the step at the foot of the altar, consecrating the child to God. (In a Byzantine church, the altar is raised and sits on top of the third step).

Having attended many liturgies and baptisms in various Byzantine Catholic Churches, I can tell you that the Baptism ceremony is very beautiful and moving and much more elaborate than in the Roman Rite.

I apologize for the length of my reply, but you Catholics out there need to pay a little closer attention to the feasts and holy days of the Church, and not be afraid to do a little homework. You could have simply begun with Wikipedia.

Wikipedia says:

The Presentation of the Blessed Virgin Mary (as it is known in the West), or The Entry of the Most Holy Theotokos into the Temple (its name in the East), is a liturgical feast celebrated by the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches.

The feast is associated with an event recounted not in the New Testament, but in the apocryphal Infancy Narrative of James. According to that text, Mary’s parents, Joachim and Anne, who had been childless, received a heavenly message that they would bear a child. In thanksgiving for the gift of their daughter, they brought her, when still a child, to the Temple in Jerusalem to consecrate her to God. Mary remained in the Temple until puberty, at which point she was assigned to Joseph as guardian. Later versions of the story (such as the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew and the Gospel of the Nativity of Mary) tell us that Mary was taken to the Temple at around the age of 3 in fulfillment of a vow. Tradition held that she was to remain there to be educated in preparation for her role as Mother of God.

I hope this sheds some light on the subject for those of you who thirst for knowledge. Remember what the bible says…”seek and you will find.” I seem to recall that It also mentions that sloth (laziness) is a sin.

Hacky
 
You’re referring to a document that was, from what I have read, probably written 150 CE. Apparently, this author was not aware of contemporary Jewish customs when he wrote this document, let alone Jewish customs during the time of Mary.
 
Hello all, ran across this thread while doing a google search on a distantly related topic. I hope its ok to post here, as I am Jewish, but hopefully I’ll be able to add an actual Jewish perspective to this topic.

As a Jew, I can say the entire notion of “virgins” conscripted in the temple is completely foreign in concept to Judaism, let alone women inside the temple. Women simply didn’t work inside the temple, and weren’t allowed inside of it. Most men weren’t either. The only people allowed in the temple were the temple priests, descended from the Kohanim (and being Kohanim doesn’t mean you’re automatically a priest).

Women weren’t allowed inside because of the menstruation issue , but it had more to do with not touching the priests than the alter (since they wouldn’t have been allowed anywhere near it anyways), as they had a very strict code on remaining pure to be able to work within the proximity of god. It also has to do with the idea of the energy of god manifesting on earth being female, as in Shekhinah. Male works with female, female works with male (hence you have the reason why only women light the candles on shabbat.)

The issue here is mistranslation of the concept of “virgin” vs. “pre-married”, and the misplacing of ritualistic importance on the first rather than the later. Virgin and “pre-married” are the same thing in Judaism. You’re a virgin before you’re married, you get married and you’re not because of the duties of marriage (procreating). In fact, consecrating the marriage is one of the first things done after the marriage rituals. The idea of virginity is in relation to marriage, and important to the Jewish concept of marriage, and not for the sake of the virginity itself. In fact, the idea of ritualistic virginity is not touched on in the religion. The only place virginity (in relation to humans) is found is in regards to the marriage itself.

The problem with a lot of the texts in the post 2nd temple period (most written in Greek), is a) They were written well after the 2nd temple was destroyed, b) The ones written by Jews were by diasporic Jews fitting in to their new cultures by representing things in a manner more “accessible” to that culture (Josephus Flavius is a good example), and c) By non-Jews longer after the fact, placing their own values or interpretations on to things (a previous poster’s mention of how the misinterpreted “Jehovah” came about is a good example).

Hope some of this helps.

Marty
 
His name is also was attached to a number of apocryphal writings that are not accepted as part of the NT canon. Among these are: the Apocalypses of James, two works found in the codices of the Nag Hammadi; the Liturgy of St. James, traditionally ascribed to him; and the so-called Infancy Gospel or the Book of James, also known as the Protoevangelium from the sixteenth century, that was based on the Gospels of Mark and Luke. As noted, for various reasons they are not considered by the Church to be inspired.

eternal-word.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=526631&Pg=Forum3&Pgnu=2&recnu=26

Why arn’t those documents considered to be inspired?

bible.ca/b-canon-criteria-of-apostolic-fathers.htm

Four Criteria for Canonicity (why certain books were eventually accepted into the NT Canon, while others were rejected):

Apostolic Origin - attributed to and/or based on the preaching/teaching of the first-generation apostles (or their closest companions).

Universal Acceptance - acknowledged by all major Christian communities in the Mediterranean world (by the end of the fourth century).

Liturgical Use - read publicly along with the OT when early Christians gathered for the Lord’s Supper (their weekly worship services).

Consistent Message - containing theological ideas compatible with other accepted Christian writings (incl. the divinity and humanity Jesus).

catholic-resources.org/Bible/NT_Canon.htm
 
Valke2 said:
Ok. But Luke ain’t Jewish scripture.

I don’t know how vital it was, but that doesn’t really support or detract from the belief that there were consecrated virgins to the Temple…

I think there is no point to believe that there were virgins in the temple if there is no example in the Bible and in historical writings that would support it. The idea is pretty much foreign to the Jewish culture.
It is common sense that aged people could make their wows as private persons in private setting although even that would not be seen as virtuous life in Judaism.
The Protoevangelium of James as a primary source for advocacy of virginity is most probably produced by a gnostic writer because they believed in impurity of sexual act.
I think it is very vital to know weather there were consecrated virgins in the temple because then we can know for sure that the Infancy Gospel of James is a product of a gnostic sect!
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top