At what age did Virgin Mary die?

[UDS]

@DrDeth

. . . It is true that since “brethren/brother” could mean half-brother (more or less as modern usage), so that the concept of Jesus’s siblings being "halves’ is not directly contradicted by the Bible. But Occams razor says they were normal siblings. There is no scriptural evidence to the contrary. You have to start making assumptions to turn them into anything but full siblings- and there is no need to make those assumptions . . . The Protoevangelium of James was written at least two centuries after the death of Jesus. None that I know of accept it as canonical. Actually- most accept it as “made up stories”.

There’s no scriptural evidence that the “brothers and sisters” were only half-brothers, but that doesn’t mean that there’s “no need” to make assumptions. From an early stage, there is a consistent and widespread (becoming universal) belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity among people who are intimately familiar with the scriptures, and this persists for nearly fifteen hundred years.

Earlier on you said you were willing to bet that the traditional belief did not predate AD 600. In point of fact, it had been dogmatically defined before that date, and a number of the early fathers wrote about it extensively by the fourth century, and some before. According to the Cathlic Encyclopedia, Iranaeus promoted the doctrine; he died in AD 190 or AD 191.

You dismiss the Protoevangelium as “written at least two centuries after the death of Jesus. I’m no expert, but what I have found through Google suggests that it was written between AD 120 and !D 170, closer to one century after the death of Jesus". I haven’t seen any source date it as late as the third century, as you suggest, though I am happy to be corrected on the point. The Protoevangelium is certainly not canonical; it does not follow that everything in it is false. If you know of modern scholarship which says that it consists of “made-up stories”, now would be a good time to point us to it. More likely it is a compilation of pre-existing stories and beliefs, some of which are taken from the Gospels, some of which are noncanonical but also appear in other sources, and some of which do not appear elsewhere. There is no reason to assume, however, that even those elements which do not appear elsewhere are simply “made up”.

It was cited, not as evidence that its contents are true, but as evidence that the perpetual virginity of Mary was widely believed long before it was dogmatically defined. We know that the Protoevangelium was popular and widely read, if only from the very large number of translations which exist, and from its early liturgical use in some Eastern liturgies.

In other words, this does seem to be an ancient tradition, almost as old as the Gospels themselves. That doesn’t make it true, of course, but it seems to me reasonable to suggest that the age and strenght of this tradition is a factor which it is reasonable to take into account when interpreting the Gospel texts.

[yBeayf]

You speak as though these were known facts, and not dubious (i.e., apocryphal) traditions.

Well, for Catholics and Orthodox, these are known facts, and not apocryphal traditions. The Protoevangelium of James not where we draw these beliefs; rather, it reflects these beliefs. These traditions are expressed in our hymnography, iconography, and writings, and are part of the faith handed down from the apostles.

[rfgdxm]

@UDS

There’s no scriptural evidence that the “brothers and sisters” were only half-brothers, but that doesn’t mean that there’s “no need” to make assumptions. From an early stage, there is a consistent and widespread (becoming universal) belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity among people who are intimately familiar with the scriptures, and this persists for nearly fifteen hundred years.

Earlier on you said you were willing to bet that the traditional belief did not predate AD 600. In point of fact, it had been dogmatically defined before that date, and a number of the early fathers wrote about it extensively by the fourth century, and some before. According to the Cathlic Encyclopedia, Iranaeus promoted the doctrine; he died in AD 190 or AD 191.

You dismiss the Protoevangelium as “written at least two centuries after the death of Jesus. I’m no expert, but what I have found through Google suggests that it was written between AD 120 and !D 170, closer to one century after the death of Jesus". I haven’t seen any source date it as late as the third century, as you suggest, though I am happy to be corrected on the point. The Protoevangelium is certainly not canonical; it does not follow that everything in it is false. If you know of modern scholarship which says that it consists of “made-up stories”, now would be a good time to point us to it. More likely it is a compilation of pre-existing stories and beliefs, some of which are taken from the Gospels, some of which are noncanonical but also appear in other sources, and some of which do not appear elsewhere. There is no reason to assume, however, that even those elements which do not appear elsewhere are simply “made up”.

It was cited, not as evidence that its contents are true, but as evidence that the perpetual virginity of Mary was widely believed long before it was dogmatically defined. We know that the Protoevangelium was popular and widely read, if only from the very large number of translations which exist, and from its early liturgical use in some Eastern liturgies.

In other words, this does seem to be an ancient tradition, almost as old as the Gospels themselves. That doesn’t make it true, of course, but it seems to me reasonable to suggest that the age and strenght of this tradition is a factor which it is reasonable to take into account when interpreting the Gospel texts.

The problem here is that the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary appears just to be “almost as old as the Gospels themselves”. But not quite as old. If this were thought from the beginning to be an important doctrine, then why do none of the earliest writings not make it clear that James was the half-brother as Jesus? That ambiguous language is used suggests that this wasn’t an important point at the time. As such, my best guess was that the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary, while quite old, was indeed apocryphal.

[spectrum]

@Abbie Carmichael

The scriptures are mum on the subject of Mary’s death, so we don’t know when she died.

That’s crazy talk. Since when is the Bible considered to be totally comprehensive in regards to all knowledge about things religious? There’s plenty we know about the Biblical period that’s not in the Bible.

There’s a LOT of stuff said about Mary that the scriptures blatantly contradict “church tradition” as well. Of course she had other children. No, she wasn’t conceived without sin, she was a plain human being like everyone else and needed a Savior just like everybody else. And why anybody would call her the Queen of Heaven is beyond me because that is the name of a false god in Jeremiah that the Jews were bringing offerings to during one of their heathen phases. Mary is never referred to as the Queen of Heaven in the Bible.

Catholics find none of that to be in conflict withthe Bible.

[Walloon]

@yBeayf

Well, for Catholics and Orthodox, these are known facts, and not apocryphal traditions. The Protoevangelium of James not where we draw these beliefs; rather, it reflects these beliefs. These traditions are expressed in our hymnography, iconography, and writings, and are part of the faith handed down from the apostles.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

The chief sources of information on the life of St. Joseph are the first chapters of our first and third Gospels; they are practically also the only reliable sources, for, whilst, on the holy patriarch’s life, as on many other points connected with the Saviour’s history which are left untouched by the canonical writings, the apocryphal literature is full of details, the non-admittance of these works into the Canon of the Sacred Books casts a strong suspicion upon their contents; and, even granted that some of the facts recorded by them may be founded on trustworthy traditions, it is in most instances next to impossible to discern and sift these particles of true history from the fancies with which they are associated.

[Emphasis added.]

[spectrum]

@spectrum

That’s crazy talk.

That sounds harsh, but it wasn’t meant that way. Sorry.

It’s just exasperating when folks try to squeeze Catholicism through a Protestant strainer. OF COURSE Catholic doctrines don’t stand up when one presumes that the foudnational notions of Protestantism are true, that’s why they’re two separate branches of the religion, if not two separate religions outright.

[spectrum]

@UDS

There’s no scriptural evidence that the “brothers and sisters” were only half-brothers, but that doesn’t mean that there’s “no need” to make assumptions.

Actually, according to Scripture any brother would HAVE to be at most a half-brother, given Jesus’ paternity. The question here isn’t half-brother versus brother, it’s half-brother or step-brother.

So no matter how you cut it, if you accept the divinity of Jesus, the term “brother” cannot be taken in its literal, standard usage.

[Mathochist]

@rfgdxm

As such, my best guess was that the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary, while quite old, was indeed apocryphal.

And to us in GQ, this is all apocryphal.

The Roman Catholic response to the OP is “She never died”. The Orthodox (I don’t recall if it was specified Greek or Russian) version is that she was assumed after she died, but nobody has come forward (or I missed it in this mishmash) to say if they have a specific age in their tradition and, if so, what that age is.

There has been no response from what I can see from any other Christian groups, but IIRC the Protestant, Anglican, and Mormon offshoots (as the largest ones) don’t really pay as much attention to Mary. Can we get a confirmation as to what these groups have to say about Marian death, dormition, or assumption? Also, people have tossed around Marian “cults” (in what seems to me to be an attempt to rhetorically smear mainstream Catholicism’s position in this discussion). Is there any information on what they believed or believe?

[rfgdxm]

@spectrum

Actually, according to Scripture any brother would HAVE to be at most a half-brother, given Jesus’ paternity. The question here isn’t half-brother versus brother, it’s half-brother or step-brother.

So no matter how you cut it, if you accept the divinity of Jesus, the term “brother” cannot be taken in its literal, standard usage.

True, but… Assuming the divinity of Jesus, it isn’t like Mary and Joseph before his ministry could have been going around telling folks that the real father of Jesus was God. At worst they could have been executed for blasphemy. Thus, they would have consistently just called Jesus their son. If Joseph and Mary did have children after Jesus, these offspring would have been called and known as the brothers and sisters of Jesus. And it would be perfectly normal for the gospel writer to refer to them as such, rather than have to always add in “of course given the true paternity, these people were really half-brothers and sisters” (or alternately “step-brothers and sisters of Jesus” if they were from a former marriage of Joseph.) Given the context of reference to them along with the stated paternity of Jesus, making this distiction would have just been redundant.

[vetbridge]

@FriarTed

many (perhaps most?) of my fellow Protties today believe she & Joseph did have kids after Jesus.

Imagine trying to live up to a big brother who could turn water into wine.

[Genghis_Bob]

@Mathochist

. . . There has been no response from what I can see from any other Christian groups, but IIRC the Protestant, Anglican, and Mormon offshoots (as the largest ones) don’t really pay as much attention to Mary. . .

In my mainstream Lutheran (ELCA) church, Mary is not discussed much, outside of her appearences in the Gospels. I was raised Catholic, and went through “Inquirer’s” classes when I joined the Lutheran Church as an adult. IIRC we were told that Mary is honored as the mother of Jesus, but more so as a model of obedient and faithful acceptance of the Will of God. The assumption was never mentioned that I can recall, which makes me think we just believe she died like any other mortal. (Well, that’s what *I’ve * always believed, but I guess the rest of the Lutherans must agree with me on it, since it’s never mentioned. Or maybe they’re just being polite).

The brothers and sisters of Jesus are accepted as just that, brothers and sisters.

[rfgdxm]

@Genghis Bob

In my mainstream Lutheran (ELCA) church, Mary is not discussed much, outside of her appearences in the Gospels. I was raised Catholic, and went through “Inquirer’s” classes when I joined the Lutheran Church as an adult. IIRC we were told that Mary is honored as the mother of Jesus, but more so as a model of obedient and faithful acceptance of the Will of God. The assumption was never mentioned that I can recall, which makes me think we just believe she died like any other mortal. (Well, that’s what *I’ve * always believed, but I guess the rest of the Lutherans must agree with me on it, since it’s never mentioned. Or maybe they’re just being polite).

The brothers and sisters of Jesus are accepted as just that, brothers and sisters.

http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=761

“For Lutherans, setting aside a day for Mary is in no way meant to suggest that she somehow stands above us or, even worse, that she herself played a pivotal role in securing our salvation. Unlike the Roman Catholic Church, which counts August 15 as a high feast day to celebrate the bodily assumption of Mary into heaven–a teaching found nowhere in Holy Scripture–Lutherans understand this day far differently. Rather than focus on Mary, this commemoration calls our attention to the grace of God who chose a lowly virgin to bring His Son into the world.”

From that it doesn’t look like the Assumption is part of Lutheran doctrine.

[yBeayf]

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:
Quote:
The chief sources of information on the life of St. Joseph are the first chapters of our first and third Gospels; they are practically also the only reliable sources, for, whilst, on the holy patriarch’s life, as on many other points connected with the Saviour’s history which are left untouched by the canonical writings, the apocryphal literature is full of details, the non-admittance of these works into the Canon of the Sacred Books casts a strong suspicion upon their contents; and, even granted that some of the facts recorded by them may be founded on trustworthy traditions, it is in most instances next to impossible to discern and sift these particles of true history from the fancies with which they are associated.

I’m Orthodox, so quoting from the Catholic Encyclopedia isn’t going to do much to impress me. In any case, it’s not an official authority, even for the Catholics. And there is indeed a large amount of apocryphal material on the lives of Christ, Mary, and Joseph; I’ve never denied that. What I am denying is that the traditions about Joseph and Mary that we are discussing (such as her ever-virginity, Joseph being a widower, etc.) are apocryphal; the Protoevangelium of James reflects many traditions that are common to Catholics and Orthodox, and (at least for the Orthodox) are deeply ingrained into our hymns and services. Joachim and Anna are commemorated at every Orthodox service as being the “holy ancestors of God”, the end of every litany names the Theotokos as “the ever-virgin Mary”, the entrance of the Theotokos into the temple to serve as a temple virgin is one of the great Orthodox feasts, and we have reams of hymnography detailing the life of the Theotokos. These hymns are found among the Eastern Catholics as well, so if the Catholic church had a problem with them, they would presumably have told the ECs to cut it out by now. Since they haven’t, they obviously don’t.

[Walloon]

Well, if you’re not Catholic, why did you write, “Well, for Catholics and Orthodox, these are known facts, and not apocryphal traditions.” Or to put it another way, who’s the better authority on Catholic beliefs — the Catholic Encylcopedia (which does have the church’s Nihil Obstat) or you?

[Polycarp]

@Walloon

Well, if you’re not Catholic, why did you write, “Well, for Catholics and Orthodox, these are known facts, and not apocryphal traditions.” Or to put it another way, who’s the better authority on Catholic beliefs — the Catholic Encylcopedia (which does have the church’s Nihil Obstat) or you?

Because he was speaking on a matter in which Catholicism and Orthodoxy agree, in general terms – the reliance on Holy Tradition as an assured element of church authority in regards to doctrine and praxis. (“Holy Tradition” needs to be carefully distinguished from small-t traditions, and I’m not in a position to write that definition precisely and accurately, but I know that it is made.)

On the other hand, there are aspects of Catholic Tradition to which the Orthodox do not subscribe, believing them to be, not promulgations of what the Church has always believed, but accretions to the original Apostolic Orthodox Faith.

Is that any help?

[yBeayf]

Well, if you’re not Catholic, why did you write, “Well, for Catholics and Orthodox, these are known facts, and not apocryphal traditions.” Or to put it another way, who’s the better authority on Catholic beliefs - the Catholic Encylcopedia (which does have the church’s Nihil Obstat) or you?

Well, on the article on St. Anne, the Encyclopedia has this to say about the Protoevanglium:

In the Orient the Protoevangelium had great authority and portions of it were read on the feasts of Mary by the Greeks, Syrians, Copts, and Arabians. In the Occident, however, it was rejected by the Fathers of the Church until its contents were incorporated by Jacobus de Voragine in his “Golden Legend” in the thirteenth century. From that time on the story of St. Anne spread over the West and was amply developed, until St. Anne became one of the most popular saints also of the Latin Church.

The Protoevanglium may only have been accepted at a late date in the West, but long before the Schism, it was believed generally accurate in the East, and so, by the Catholics as well (who were at one time the same church as the Orthodox). And as I said, these traditions are still fully accepted by the Eastern Catholics, and expressed in their hymnography and iconography.

[Mathochist]

@rfgdxm

http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=761

From that it doesn’t look like the Assumption is part of Lutheran doctrine.

Thank you, rfgdxm. From that, I’d be willing to buy that most of the Protestant branch thinks similarly. Any comment from the CofE (or the Episcopalians in the US) or the Mormons?

[Polycarp]

@Mathochist

Thank you, rfgdxm. From that, I’d be willing to buy that most of the Protestant branch thinks similarly. Any comment from the CofE (or the Episcopalians in the US) or the Mormons?

As I noted back in an early post, Aug. 15 is the Feast of St. Mary the Virgin Mother for Episcopalians – and it’s a black letter feast, meaning it’s equivalent to Transfiguration, Thanksgiving Day, and the feasts of Apostles and Evangelists, but not a Principal Feast like Christmas, Easter, or Pentecost.

Yeah, we think she died on that day, and we believe that she, like any good Christian, went to Heaven. And by and large we honor her as the mother of our Lord, the Theotokos, but we don’t as a rule make a production number out of her. (Anglican piety varies so greatly that absolutes are not easily defined – so don’t be surprised to find an Anglican with a great reverence for her equivalent to the stereotype Catholic; I’m stating my general impression.)

[UDS]

@rfgdxm

The problem here is that the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary appears just to be “almost as old as the Gospels themselves”. But not quite as old. If this were thought from the beginning to be an important doctrine, then why do none of the earliest writings not make it clear that James was the half-brother as Jesus? That ambiguous language is used suggests that this wasn’t an important point at the time. As such, my best guess was that the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary, while quite old, was indeed apocryphal.

Well, it’s certainly apocryphal in the technical sense of not being affirmed in the canonical books. But we must remember that, at the time - the first and second centuries AD - there was no canon. The Protoevangalium draws on at least two of the gospels which were subsequently identified as canonical, and on other works which were not, but the editor(s)/redactor(s)/author(s) (take your pick) who compiled the Protoevangelium would not have been aware of the distinction. Nor would the original readers.

The fact that the gospels don’t stress Mary’s perpetual virginity, or explain the precise nature of the relationship between Jesus and his “brothers and sisters”, could equally be accounted for by the assumption that the point was not controversial. The Gospels are about Jesus, not about Mary. (The Protoevangalium, by contrast, is largely about Mary.) It may have been widely understood and accepted that Mary remained virgin; the authors may have felt no need to stress the point, especially as it wasn’t all that relevant to what they were trying to say in the Gospel.

As mentioned earlier in this thread, doctrine tends only to be dogmatically defined when it is challenged. Something similar may be true of scripture. The fact that scripture does not affirm a particular point does not necessarily mean that the point is untrue or was not accepted at the time; it could on the contrary indicate that the point was so widely accepted that affirmation was unneccessary, or that the point was not especially relevant to the main point of the scripture concerned, or some combination of the two.