medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture

Doctissimi, 

excuse me that I enjoy this thread so interesting for me (I had to poke my finger into this issue since I have been working on the Protevangelium Jacobi, which is quite much dipped into Marian issues). Let me add a last word on my side to some of the latest remarks (as far as my limited expertise allows me). 

First, to Jim. I completely agree with you on the ’schizoid’ nature of Marian piety (esp. in the Catholic Church). Your examples are indisputable testimonies to the ambiguous potentials of the issue (and to the unpleasant fact that popular piety is not necessarily sound). Some of these formulations and events can have, I think, a defensible meaning, but they are often clad in a confusing terminology – what is more, thrive on it (esp. in the Latin context). This is then further complicated by the misunderstandings of well-meaning, but less well read divines (or minds sparsely equipped with furniture, as my father used to say). I think the ’coredemptrix’ idea also results from such misunderstandings (or mindless piety, to be brutally frank), probably encouraged, sometimes endorsed by institutional interests of the church, but which she (the Roman Church) has always been way too smart than to endorse officially. (The dogma of the immaculate conception of the catholic church only speaks about Mary’s exemption from the original sin,  but it stresses that Mary was conceived humanly.) 

The problem, as I see, is the richness in the meaning of ’immaculate’. If it would only mean the lack of original sin, it would probably pass for correct for those who believe in an Augustinian, strict and rather gloomy understanding of the sin of Adam and Even – the „in quo omnes peccaverunt” reading (or rendering) of  the eph’ hoo in Romans 5, 12. (Augustinian anthropology: „[homo] … non potest non peccare …” as a result of the original sin.) If that’s the case in theology, Mary must have been exempt of it, since she was capable of assent on her own, potuit non peccare … 

For those, who do not think along the rather pessimistic theology of the older Augustine, like those in the Eastern Churches, the dogma of the ’immaculate conception’ is not needed for the explaination why Mary could reverse the disobedience of Eve by her obedience. (Following the wise admonitions of our host, I will not now express my personal preferences.:-) 

The problem is that there is a tempting interpretation of ’immaculate’ as being ’, meaning „without the will of the flesh”. Here anybody, whether adherent of the theology of the great Western Reformers, or not, can “sapere haeresim”, since the only One, who was concieved ‘without the will of the flesh’, was Jesus Christ. But, but, historically not even the Protevangelium, which has Mary as one of its heroins, suggested anything like that. She was clearly not presented by the Protevangelium to be conceived _with_ or by ‘the will of the flesh’ of her parents (think of the Byzantine icons depicting the meeting of  Anna and Joachim as they are kissing each other!). The theology of the Protevangelium is rather sound. 

Here a point of philological interest: Martin Jugie (and others) argued in the first half of the 20th century that the Protevangelium Jacobi’s presentation of the words of the angel to Joachim ‘The Lord hearkened to your supplication … your wife Anna _has conceived_ , … en gastri eilephen’ means that the immaculate conception was already on the mind of the 2nd c. apologists. But as Amann pointed out, the perfect in (some of) the mss. is clearly a perfectum propheticum, a past which semantically means future, modelled on the LXX usage. To which we might add that the miracles concomitant to the birth of Christ or anything similar are entirely missing from the short description of the birth of Mary in the same Protevangelium.

Now – but this is modern stuff to be set aside, I obey the orders :-)  – it is but of interest to the student, why did the sense for good theology arguably deteriorate (at least in these issues) over the last couple of hundred years?  

2. Maris stella meaning the Pole Star, the Constant Guide of mariners cast upon the trackless expanse of the ocean? 

I also think it is an excellent suggestion, and I’m ready to adopt it, although it does not entirely contradict the spirit of what I have suggested. It can very well be that it is Mary’s directing role for humans which is symbolised in this phrase. Again, the sea as the symbol of human life, the Church as a boat, and the Star as the guidance (as a testimony to divine philanthropy) give a well-rounded picture. (Good materials for the sea as life can be found in Hugo Rahner’s Griechische Mythen in christlicher Deutung, with early illustrative materials.)

3. On the Akathistos line „Unto you, O Theotokos, invincible champion,” etc. 
Well, especially early hymns often used, well, revelled in surprising, or potentially charged contrasts to emphasize, or just to express ’the event which makes nature stupefied’. For early Christians Mary is an absolutely unique person for being granted the privilege to deliver Jesus Christ, and this is rightly so on the basis of what they had very well percieved (countless examples again in patristic literature) that an absolutely unexplainable paradox happened at Christ’s birth. (See e.g. the great Chora mosaic with the medal of Christ on the breast of the Theotokos, ’containing the Uncontainable’, os the hymns of Christmas say, already present in Rhomanos.)
 
Yes, I agree that all this might sound quite foreign to our modern ears, but Mary was thought to ’defeat the prince of this world’, since she _could have_ answered like Eve did, but she didn’t, was taken absolutely seriously by the Great Church even in its early period. . This great type – antitype contrast was celebrated, explained, extolled, exalted, praised, glorified and venerated in innumerable ways – but it was rather central, wasn’t it? And, I agree, a lot of rhetorics was allowed here which arguably should have been avoided. But the theological idea remains correct despite unfortunate verbal flowerings. 

By for now, and thanks for your kind patience. 

George 


G. Gereby
associate professor 
Ancient and Mediaeval Philosophy Department, Eötvös Loránd University Budapest
recurrent associate professor
Medieval Studies Dept.
Central European University 
Budapest V.
Nador u. 9.
H-1051 Hungary 

[log in to unmask]
[log in to unmask]

Phone/Fax/a.m.: + 36.1.34 12 634

**********************************************************************
To join the list, send the message: join medieval-religion YOUR NAME
to: [log in to unmask]
To send a message to the list, address it to:
[log in to unmask]
To leave the list, send the message: leave medieval-religion
to: [log in to unmask]
In order to report problems or to contact the list's owners, write to:
[log in to unmask]
For further information, visit our web site:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/medieval-religion.html