Gavin Ortlund Answered on Bodily Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary

The Assumption of Mary: Protestant Critique
27th June 2022 | Truth Unites
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMhlrM8Zb3M

0:15 You claim to have made responses to non-Protestant traditions.

That's RC, EO, Copts, Armenians and Assyrians.

Has it not occurred to you that all of above have a feast related to the belief, whether it counts as "infallble dogma" or not?

0:57 These issues alone are a good reason to shun Protestantism.

2:08 Moo-nee-fee-chen-tiss-im-ooss Day-ooss.

4:20 "to all of us"
John Henry Newman meant "all of us Puseyites - the ones he was just leaving.

His book was written before he converted, and he was considered to know the faith well enough to convert without instruction, so, the book was finished to the model of his viewpoints as an Anglican converting, not yet a well instructed Catholic.

6:22 Church history.
Same reason we have to believe St. Matthew wrote the Gospel of Matthew.

Read it in St. Andrew of Crete.

8:00 unknown in the early Church

What he really means is, unattested in the few texts we have from the early Church.

Immaculate conception is actually better, since Greek and Coptic versions of Sub tuum praesidium involve a phrase changed in the Latin, with the Greek version being "Su mone hagne, su mone eulogemene."

9:43 End of fifth century - more than one of the martyrologies are actually younger than that.

This is when we start getting hagiography.

12:29 Let's confer 25 September.
Apud castellum Emmaus natalis beati Cleophae, qui fuit Christi discipulus, quem et in eadem domo in qua mensam Domino paraverat, pro confessione illius a Judaeis occisum tradunt, et gloriosa memoria sepultum.

When does this kind of information about early martyrs start getting recorded?

Let's take Martyrologium Hierosolymianum. It's before the time frame you give. However, the three oldest manuscripts of it are later, and the wiki says ..."all relatively late, from the 8th century, which means they have inevitably suffered interference in the course of transmission" ... meaning, if August 15th is found (I don't know whether this is the case) in the Echternach example, you count that as a contamination.

Mid 4th C. and Hierosolymianum is when local traditions start getting a spread by combining their material into works spanning basically all of the calendar.

And lack of such mention before 450 (apart from possibly this one) would be because the tradition was local to Jerusalem.

Now, you could object that St. Cleophas dying a martyr in Emmaus where he had hosted God might also have been mentioned in Eusebius of Caesaraea. The thing is, as Stephan Borgehammar mentioned in How the Holy Cross was Found, this man had his biasses. I am not sure I recall exactly which ones, but Caesaraea is geographically close to and therefore rival to Jerusalem. So, Eusebius might have had some unwillingness to disclose things that gave more glory to Jerusalem.

14:05 Not an oral tradition that is generally known - Jerusalem would suffice.

16:31 Obviously, an oral tradition in Jerusalem would not necessarily be accessible on Cyprus, where Salamis is.

And if John II of Jerusalem would have been the one source who could have told him, Epiphanius had already rubbed him the wrong way, by demanding a retroactive condemnation of Origen, which John II refused. Hence Epiphanius deliberately could have been served imprecise informations.

17:13 (Isidor) Her tomb in the valley of Josaphat ... perfectly coherent with the account of St. Andrew of Crete, who says Her assumption was discovered by St. Thomas Didymus discovering Her tomb empty as to Herself, but having left Her belt and Her veil.

And if John II suspected Epiphanius of what would later be known as iconoclastic tendencies, it is not implausible why he would have refused to show him these very precious relics.

10:52 bay-AH-tay mu-REE-ay VIRR-djin-iss

13:42 I think you just earned the cyber an occasion to pour me a coffee!

18:26 In fact, the Latin West was the "odd man out" when it came to Immaculate conception. The Latin version of Sub tuum praesidium ends in another way.

While the Latin West was still going with St. Augustine on this one, between himself and Duns Scotus, people like Gregorius Palamas (and the Gk / Cp versions of Sub tuum) were affirming in some diverse ways the Immaculate conception.

St. Augustine (and Tertullian) are also some fairly big distance from Jerusalem.

22:46 Jacob of Serugh was in the Antiochene patriarchate, also not in Jerusalem area.

24:52 Arguably the oral tradition was tied to Jerusalem and to the showing of the relics (now in the hands of Russian Orthodox).

You could easily disprove this hypothesis if untrue : if one of the written sources against the bodily assumption is from Jerusalem, that means I am wrong.

in Syria and around Jerusalem

May I underline and around Jerusalem again?

28:22 No, it does not give every indication of being a later accretion.

And it so happens, normally with preceding Dormition, some kind of dying, this is believed by all five confessions that have Apostolic Succession:

Roman Catholics
Greek Orthodox
Coptic Anti-Calchedonians
Armenian Anti-Chalcedonians
Assyrian Anti-Ephesians.

I checked. If this were a "later accretion," why was it not just limited to for instance Chalcedonians (Roman Catholics with Greek Orthodox) or Anti-Chalcedonians?

29:03 Thank you for the reference to Joseph's dream, Genesis 37:9.

I consider this is an indication this is Mary. Recall what Her most chaste bridegroom was called? Joseph.

30:19 Bodily assumption : And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars:

In heaven = She's there.
Clothed, feet, crowned head = bodily.

The rest is retrospect.

The one perhaps indication against this being the Blessed Virgin would be was in pain to be delivered - could be considered as indicating normal pains at birth, which is against tradition stating She remained virgin in giving birth.

But it could also be considered as referring to a state before actually giving birth, And it came to pass, that when they were there, her days were accomplished, that she should be delivered. and in that sense it would not conflict with the full sense of the Virgin Birth.

The dragon attacking Her = through Herod.
Into the Wilderness = some part of Egypt outside Alexandria. Perhaps where early monks appear in Sketes later on.

There are actually two entities that could be called "Frau Zimmerman" (Mrs Carpenter) : the Church as wife of Christ and the Blessed Virgin as spouse of St. Joseph.