Belief in the assumption of Mary is both a Catholic and Orthodox thing, not followed by Protestants. But in its favour there are Old Testament precedents as Enoch and Elijah are shown to have been assumed into heaven. There are also Jewish traditions that Moses and the Ark of the Covenant were assumed into heaven.
Pseudepigrapha works, although not reliable and not like the Bible at all, can be right about some details about a person’s life. The Gospel of James locates Mary as being brought up in the Temple.
The Holy of holies in the Second Temple had no Ark of the Covenant as this had already disappeared at the time of the exile; it was, in fact, empty. However, Mary living there as a ward of the Temple was symbolically the Ark of the New Covenant, the vessel that would bear the Christ.
Early tradition testifies to Mary living with the apostle John on Mount Zion after the crucifixion, resurrection and ascension of Jesus. The Passing of Mary portrays all the apostles being present at the death of Mary which could be because they had returned to attend the Council of Jerusalem in 50/51 AD. Mary was buried in a cave tomb marked by the Church of the Sepulchre of Saint Mary. Thomas, who doubted the resurrection of Jesus, is not however, present. The pseudepigrapha work attributed to Joseph of Arimathea the Passing of Mary claims that the apostle Thomas sees the assumption of Mary into heaven and she drops her belt for him to pick up. Thomas orders that Mary’s tomb be opened three days after she died. The tomb is found to be empty. Belief in the Assumption of Mary came from the apostles themselves and was spread to all the churches that they founded.
In the 19th century the Catholic Church, influenced by the visions of a German nun, decided that Mary had lived with the apostle John at Ephesus in Turkey. A ruined first century house found near Ephesus, called ‘Doorway to the Virgin’ was restored and renamed ‘House of the Virgin Mary’. Many Catholic pilgrims visit this shrine now instead of Abbey of the Dormition and Church of the Sepulchre of Saint Mary in Jerusalem.
The apostle John departed after the council of 51 AD and after Mary died for Ephesus to continue the work of Paul and others in founding a church there. In Ephesus he himself became known as the virgin as he remained unmarried and chaste in this way, leading, I believe, to the place where he lived and was arrested to be called ‘Doorway to the virgin’.
The tomb of St. John beneath the Basilica of St. John at Selcuk near Ephesus was also found to be empty. There have never been any bodily relics for the apostle John. There is a legend that he died and was assumed into heaven.
For Jesus, his mother Mary and John the beloved disciple there have never been any bodily relics, although there were relics for all the other saints. This fact makes it more plausible and believable that it is because Jesus rose from the dead and after 40 days ascended into heaven, while Mary and John both died, were resurrected and were immediately assumed into heaven.
The veneration of the goddess Artemis at Ephesus as a virgin goddess is an interesting coincidence. The cult of Artemis is well-documented in the book of Acts in connection with Paul’s visit to Ephesus.
Liturgies to Mary grew up in the fifth century after the Council of Ephesus proclaimed Mary as Theotokos, or Mother of God. Processions with litanies and novenas were established with the festivals of Mary. The question arises, is Mary the Mediatrix of graces or the Mediatrix of all graces?
In the 8th century the successors to emperor Constantine tried to get the church to ban religious images as the pious devotion to statues and icons had replaced the faith of the early church, and now more closely resembled the cult of the goddess Artemis. Decisions to ban religious images as idolatry were quickly reversed by a Lateran council in Rome and an eucumenical Second Council of Nicaea. This marked the schism between the Orthodox churches of the East and the Catholic Church of the West.
The Catholic Church later adopted belief in the Immaculate Conception of Mary – that she was conceived without sin. This belief was rejected by Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century and by other Dominicans. It was also rejected by Orthodox churches.
The Protestant Reformation from 1517 swept away religious images, statues and processions. It also swept away any belief that could not be established from the Bible, so beliefs concerning Mary ceased to have any place in Protestant Christianity.
There is, however, the curious passage of Revelation 12 written by the apostle John while banished to the Island of Patmos where a woman clothed with the sun and crowned with twelve stars gives birth to a male child. All commentaries agree that the male child is the Messiah and Catholic commentaries identify the woman as Mary Queen of Heaven.
It is my belief that bearing the Son of God gave Mary a special place whether she was sanctified by grace before her birth or at the Annunciation.
I believe with Orthodox and Catholic Christians in the Assumption of Mary from her tomb outside Jerusalem, north of Gethsemani. That the assumption of Mary was not the first assumption, as assumption is prefigured in Judaism with the prophet Elijah makes this belief easier. I also see Mary as identified with the Ark of the Covenant as holy receptacles – the Ark of the Covenant bearing the stone tablets of the Law and Mary as bearing Christ of the New Covenant. I believe that both were assumed into heaven. I tend to agree with Thomas Aquinas and so do not believe in the Immaculate Conception of Mary.
I can see exactly why the Protestant reformers felt the need to stop the Cult of Saints and make a clean sweep. Although I want to adopt a conciliatory approach that not all devotion is wrong, although the emphasis can be wrong.
In the prayers I would be more comfortable with Mary ‘Bearer of Christ’ rather than Mary ‘Mother of God’ to translate ‘Theotokos’.
Should Protestants think again?
Maybe there is a more nuanced position to take regarding Mary.
Finally, as a footnote, I looked at many pseudepigrapha writings to see what they contain in order to write this article. It is obvious why they were not included in the canon of the Bible – not any Bible whether Orthodox, Catholic or Protestant – as they are totally different to biblical writings. Not only are their authors almost certainly not the real authors, but the tales they contain are like Mystery Play scripts.
Mystery Plays portrayed the stories of Biblical characters as part of liturgy from the 5th century, while Miracle Plays later on portrayed the lives of saints and their miracles. I feel certain now that pseudepigrapha works of the 1st to 3rd centuries were the forerunners of Mystery Plays written by playwrights to enthrall their audiences and inspire faith, but never written as accurate accounts of events.
Thus, pseudepigrapha works are not ‘non-canonical books of the Bible’, not ‘missing books of the Bible’ and not among the ‘Apocryphal books of the Bible’ which come from the Septuagint Bible in Greek, they are literary works written by playwrights as plays to gain popularity among Christian audiences. The gentile Christian audiences of the early centuries were converted directly from the cults of gods and goddesses all with their mythologies that preceded the coming of Christianity.
Merry and True 