St. Anne as the Prototype of a Saint Connected with Healing and Milk Nourishing: Introducing Various Additional Textual Sources, Including the Apocrypha

Ene D-Vasilescu, Elena

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-98986-0_6

Elena Ene D-Vasilescu⁵

Part of the book series: New Approaches to Byzantine History and Culture ((NABHC))

280 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter explores various literary sources concerned with St. Anne, including apocryphal texts, particularly as they relate to the saint milk-nursing her daughter.

6.1
Selected Mainstream Christian Texts
6.2
Apocryphal Writings
1. 6.2.1
  The Protoevangelion
2. 6.2.2
  Pseudo Matthew
3. 6.2.3
  Variant Apocryphal Texts
6.3
Descriptions of Events Leading to Mary’s Birth in Apocryphal Sources
6.4
Descriptions of Anne Breastfeeding the Child Mary in Apocryphal Sources

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Chapter: USD 29.95; Price excludes VAT (USA)

eBook: USD 49.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Softcover Book: USD 64.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 89.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
St. Romanus, Sancti Romani Melodi cantica, edited by Paul Maas and Constantine Athanasius Typanis, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963, p. 276. 6–7; Marjorie Carpenter (ed. and trans.), Kontakia of Romanos, Byzantine Melodist, Columbia, MO: Columbia University Press, vol. 1, 1970, p. 304.
2.
P. Maas and C. A. Trypanis (eds.), Sancti Romani Melodi cantica genuina, 276. 6–7, 280. 6–7. As shown, the work was translated and edited by M. Carpenter as Kontakia of Romanos, Byzantine Melodist, Columbia, Miss.: vols. 1–2, 1970–1973.
3.
M. B. Cunningham, in the Wider than the Heaven, and “The Use of the Protevangelion of James in Eighth-Century Homilies on the Mother of God”, pp. 167–174, presents some of these homilies and their authors.
4.
John of Damascus, In Nativitatem B. V. Mariae, PG 96, 672D; Homily on the Nativity of the Virgin Mary, ed. B. Kotter, Die Schriften des Johannes von Damaskos, PTS 29, Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, vol. 5, 1988, p. 170; trans. Cunningham, Wider Than Heaven, p. 55 (with some changes).
5.
John of Damascus, In Nativitatem B. V. Mariae, PG 96, 672B; Homily on the Nativity of the Virgin Mary, ed. B. Kotter, Die Schriften des Johannes von Damaskos, p. 170; trans. Cunningham, Wider Than Heaven, p. 55.
6.
Saint Gregory Palamas, Mary the Mother of God, edited by C. Veniamin, pp. 1–47. See also Émile De Strycker, La Forme la Plus Ancienne Du Protevangile de Jacques. Recherches sur le papyrus Bodmer 5 avec une édition critique du texte grec et une traduction annotée. En appendice: Les version arméniennes traduites en latin par Hans Quecke (Subsidia hagiographica 33), Bruxelles: Société des Bollandistes, 1961, p. 94.
7.
Photius/Photίos, “Homily IX: Of the Same Most-Blessed Patriarch Photius, Archbishop of Constantinople, Homily on the Nativity of our Most-Holy Lady, the Mother of God”, in C. Mango (ed. and trans.), The Homilies of Photius Patriarch of Constantinople, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1958, pp. 166–167; see also B. Laoúrdas (ed.), Omiliai, Thessaloniki, 1959, p. 91.
8.
Photius, “Homily lX”, p. 166.
9.
Ephrem the Syrian/Morris, “Rhythms of Saint Ephrem the Syrian. Hymn ‘Rhythm’ the Fourth”, pp. 30–31. And in Ephrem the Syrian, “Hymn on the Nativity 4”, in Hymns, K. E. McVey (trans.).
10.
James of Kokkinobaphos, “Oration in S. Deiparae Desponsationem/ Homily on the Betrothal of the Mother of God”, in the “Homilies on the Mother of God”, PG 127. 696A. Homilies of James the Monk in the MS Vat. Gr. 1162, fol. 159r. Cutler has a black and white reproduction of f. 159r from the MS Gr. 1162 in “The Cult of Galaktotrophousa in Byzantium and Italy”, pp. 166 (fig. 4), and comments about it on pp. 175–176. The manuscript depicts scenes from the Life of St. John the Baptist. On p. 175, n. 37, Cutler shows that the corresponding miniature in Paris, B. N. Gr. 1208, is “essentially identical” to the image from the Bibliotheca Vaticana. See also C. Stornajolo, Miniature delle Omilie di Giacomo Monaco e dell’evangeliario gr. Urbinate, Rome: Biblioteca apostolica vaticana, 1910. pl. 67.
11.
James Keith Elliott (ed.), The Apocryphal of the New Testament. A Collection of Apocryphal Christian Literature in an English Translation based on R.M. James, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1993, p. 49; Émile Amann, Le Protévangile de Jacques et ses remaniements latins. Introduction, textes, traduction et commentaire, Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1910.
12.
“Pseudo-Matthaei” in Jan Gijsel and Rita Beyers (eds.), Libri de nativitate Mariae. Pseudo-Matthaei Evangelium, Turnhout: Brepols, Series 9, 1997. See also J. Gijsel, “Nouveaux témoins du pseudo-Matthieu”. Saeris Erudiri 41, Tumhout: Brepols, 2002, pp. 273–300.
13.
“Libri de nativitate Mariae” in Jan Gijsel and Rita Beyers (eds.), Libri de nativitate Mariae, Brepols, Turnhout, Series 10, 1997. Both volumes are in Corpus Christianorum. Series Apocryphorum, Turnhout: Brepols.
14.
Origen, “Commentarius in Matthaeum” PG 13 X 877A-878D.
15.
Adolf von Harnack, Die Chronologie der altchristlichen Literatur bis Eusebius l (Band I. Die Chronologie der Litteratur bis Irenäus), Leipzig: Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung, 1897, 600–603.
16.
Adolf Hilgenfeld, Kritische Untersuchungen über die Evangelien Justus, Halle, 1904, pp. 153–161. See also De Strycker, La forme la plus ancienne, 1964, pp. 10–11 where he comments on Hilgenfeld’s classification.
17.
Jacqueline Lafontaine-Dosogne, Iconographie de l’enfance de la Vierge dans l’Empire byzantin et en Occident, Brussel: Palais des Académies, 1964, 1992; vol. 1 (out of 2), p. 15.
18.
David R. Cartlidge and James Keith Elliott, Art & Christian Apocrypha, London, New York: Routledge, 2001.
19.
J. K. Elliott, The Apocryphal New Testament: A Collection of Apocryphal Christian Literature in an English Translation, Oxford: Oxford University Pres, 2005.
20.
David R. Cartlidge and J. Keith Elliott, Art and the Christian Apocrypha, London, New York: Routledge, 2001, 33.
21.
Jan Gijsel and Rita Beyers, Libri de nativitate Mariae. Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew: Pseudo-Matthaei Evangelium. Textus et Commentarius & Libellus de Nativitate Sanctae Mariae. Textus et Commentarius (French & Latin), Turnhout: Brepols (Series Apocryphorum vols. 9–10), 1997.
22.
Montagues Rhodes James (trans.), The Apocryphal New Testament being the Apocryphal Gospels, Acts, Epistles, and Apocalypses with other narratives and fragments newly translated by Montague Rhodes James, Oxford, at the Oxford, et al.: Clarendon Press Oxford University Press, 1985 edition (first edition 1924).
23.
Guillaume Postel, De nativitate Mediatoris ultima, nunc future et toti orbi terrarium in singulis ratione praeditis manifestanda, opus: In Quo Totius naturae obscuritas, origo & creatio, Basel: Royal Collection Trust, RCIN 1053310, [S. n.]1547. The copy existent in The Bavarian State Library, publisher Johann Oporinus, was digitalised and uploaded online in 2009. Postel translated it from Greek.
24.
Michael Neander (trans.), Protoevangelion sive de natalibus Iesu Christi, et ipsius matris virginis Mariae, somo historicus divi Iacobis minoris, consobrini and fratris Domini Iesu, apostoli primarii, et episcopi christianorum primi Hierosolmys Evangelica historia, quam scripsit beatus Marcus … Vita Ioannis Marci evangelitae, collecta ex probatoribus autoribus, per Theodorum Bibliandrum. Indices … concinnati per eundem. This Latin version was edited by Theodorus Bibliander and published by Johann Oporinus, Basel, 1552. Protoevangelium Iacobi constitutes entry 254 in J. M. de Bujanda, Index des Livres Interdits. Index d’Anvers, 1569, 1570, 1571, Geneva: Centre d’Ėtudes de la Renaissance, Ėditions de l’ Université de Sherbrooke, Librairie Droz and Bibliothèque nationale du Québec, 1988, 1984, p. 217. Another edition was published in Strasbourg by Josias Rihel, 1570.
25.
De Strycker (ed.), La forme la plus ancienne du Protoévangile de Jacques, pp. 6. 8–9.
26.
Origen, In Matthaeum, X 17 (Klosterman, X, pp. 21, 26–29); Protoevangelion lX, 2; XVll 1–2; XVlll, 1 (in De Strycker’s edition: 19: 13–14, 35: 8–9, 36: 1, 37: 11–12).
27.
Émile Amman, Le Protoévangile de Jacques et ses remaniements latins. Introduction, texts, traduction et commentaire (Les apocryphes du Nouveau Testament), Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1910, pp. 74, 150–151; De Strycker, La forme la plus ancienne du Protoévangiles, p. 41, footnote 3.
28.
Johann Albert Fabricius, Codex apocryphus Novi Testamenti Sumptu viduae (1743); Sumptu viduae B. Schilleri and J. C. Kisneri; online by Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 2007.
29.
De Strycker (ed.), La forme la plus ancienne du Protoévangile, footnote 3 on p. 41, pp. 371 ff.
30.
J. A. Fabricius, Codex apocryphus enlists the names of the authors from the sixteenth–seventeenth centuries who underline the impossibility of such an attribution, pp. 53–65. See also De Strycker (ed.), La forme la plus ancienne du Protoévangile, p. 6.
31.
Lafontaine-Dosogne, Iconographie de l’enfance de la Vierge, p. 15.
32.
De Strycker (ed.), La forme la plus ancienne du Protoévangile, pp. 14, 22.
33.
Neander, Protoevangelion sive de natalibus Jesu Christi et ipsius Matris virginis Mariae. Lafontaine-Dosogne, Iconographie de l’enfance de la Vierge, p. 15.
34.
Neander (trans.), Protoevangelion sive de natalibus Iesu Christi.
35.
Lafontaine-Dosogne Iconographie de l’enfance de la Vierge, pp. 15–16. She mentions as an important contribution to the study of Mary’s life the work of Constantin von Tischendorf (ed.), Evangelia apocrypha: adhibitis plurimis codicibus Graecis et Latinis maximam partem nunc primum consultis atque ineditorum copia, Lipsiae, 1876; there is a second edition Hildesheim, New York: Zurigo, 1876.
36.
A. Harnack, Die Chronologie…, pp. 600–603.
37.
De Strycker (ed.), La forme la plus ancienne du Protoévangile de Jacques, pp. 14, 22.
38.
Elliott (ed.), The Apocryphal of the New Testament, p. 49.
39.
Ermenegildo Pistelli, Pubblicazioni della Società italiana per la ricerca dei papyri, Papiri greci e latini l, Firenze, 1912, pp. 9–15.
40.
De Strycker (ed.), La forme la plus ancienne du Protoévangile de Jacques, pp., 30–33; von Tischendorf, (ed.), Evangelia apocrypha.
41.
Agnes Smith Lewis (ed. and trans.), “Apocrypha Syriaca: the Protoevangelium Jacobi and Transitus Mariae”, in Studia Sinaitica, no. 11, London, 1902. Actually, the full title of this document is Apocrypha Syriaca: the Protoevangelium Jacobi and Transitus Mariae: with texts from the Septuagint, the Corân, the Peshiṭta, and from a Syriac hymm in a Syro-Arabic palimpsest of the fifth and other centuries.
42.
De Strycker, La forme la plus ancienne du Protoévangile de Jacques, p. 35–36.
43.
A. Smith Lewis (ed. and trans.), “Apocrypha Syriaca”, p. X.
44.
J. K. Elliott, The Apocryphal New Testament, p. 48.
45.
In the surviving manuscripts the so-called Decretum Gelasianum or Gelasian Decree exists on its own and also appended to a list of theological books declared to be “canonical” by a Council of Rome under Pope Damasus I, bishop of Rome between 366 and 383. That record contains a quotation from Augustine written in about 416. The rules recorded in the Incipit Concilium Verbis Romae sub Damaso Papa de Explanatione Fidei, the so-called Damasine List, are the same as those contained in the Council of Carthage’s Canon 24, 415 AD. The Decretum has several parts: the second is a catalogue of rules, and the fifth part is a catalogue of the apocrypha and other writings that were to be rejected (Acts of Philips, Gospel of Barnabas, Passion (sic) of St. George, Acts of Thecla and Paul, etc.). The catalogue of tenets records 26 books of the New Testament (Parts 1, 3, and 4 are not relevant to the respective collection).
46.
Elliott, The Apocryphal New Testament, p. 48.
47.
Idem, pp. 39–40, 54.
48.
De Strycker, La forme la plus ancienne du Protoévangile, 13, 39.
49.
De Strycker, La forme la plus ancienne du Protoévangile, pp. 39–40, 363–371; von Tischendorf, (ed.), Evangelia apocrypha, pp. 1–2.
50.
É. Amman, Le Protoévangile de Jacques et ses remaniements latins.
51.
José Antonio Aldama, “Fragmentos de una versón latina del Protoevangelio de Santiago”, pp. 63–74.
52.
James (ed. and trans.) 1924; De Strycker, La forme la plus ancienne du Protoévangile, pp. 40–41; 364–367.
53.
J. A. Aldama 1962; De Strycker (ed.), La forme la plus ancienne du Protoévangile, pp. 50, 367–371.
54.
Abbé V. Leboquais, Les bréviaires manuscrits des bibliothèques publiques de France, lll, Paris, 1934; pp. 400–404. See also De Strycker (ed.), La forme la plus ancienne du Protoévangile, pp. 367–369.
55.
Eberhard Nestle, “Ein syrisches Bruchstück aus dem Protevangelium Jacobi”, Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 3:1 (1902): 86–87; Eduard Sachau, Verzeichniss der syrischen Handschriften der Königlichen Bibliothek zu Berlin, Die Handschriften-Verzeichnisse der Königlichen Bibliothek zu Berlin 23, Berlin: A. Asher & Co, 1899.
56.
Ermenegildo Pistelli, Protevangelo di Jacopo; prima tradzione italiana con introduzione e note di Ermenegildo Pistelli. Segue un’appendice dallo Pseudo-Matteo, Lanciano: R. Carabba, 1919.
57.
J. S. Sventsitsky, M. K. Mills, Апокрифы древних христиан: Исследование, тексты, комментарии, Moscow: Russian Academy of Sciences, 1989.
58.
Simion Popescu-Liliacoveanu, “Protoevanghelia lui Iacob”, Evangheliile apocrife, Bucharest, 1922.
59.
Gijsel and Beyers, Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew & Libri de nativitate Mariae, vol. 9, 19–20; 1997, vol. 10, p. 28; J. K. Elliott, A Synopsis of the Apocryphal Nativity and Infancy Narratives, Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2006, 2006: 6, 8, 12, 14.
60.
Cartlidge and Elliott, Art and the Christian Apocrypha, London, New York: Routledge, 2001, p. 33
61.
Kathleen Ashley and Pamela Sheingorn (eds.), “Introduction”, Interpreting Cultural Symbols: Saint Anne in Late Medieval Society, University of Georgia Press, Athens and London, 1990, p. 10.
62.
Gijsel and Beyers, Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew & Libri de nativitate Mariae, vol. 9, pp. 19–20; vol. 10, p. 28.
63.
D. R. Cartlidge and J. K. Elliott, Art and the Christian Apocrypha, Routledge, London, New York, 2001, p. 33; Elliott, A Synopsis of the Apocryphal Nativity, pp. 6, 8, 12, 14.
64.
Cartlidge and Elliott, Art and the Christian Apocrypha, p. 33; Elliott, A Synopsis of the Apocryphal Nativity; Lewis (ed. and trans.), “Apocrypha Syriaca”; Lafontaine-Dosogne, Iconographie de l’enfance de la Vierge, pp. 15–16.
65.
Cartlidge and Elliott, Art and the Christian Apocrypha.
66.
Gijsel and Beyers, Libri de nativitate Mariae. Gospel of pseudo-Matthew, p. 20 and footnote 1 on p. 20.
67.
Ashley and Sheingorn (eds.), “Introduction”, Interpreting Cultural Symbols, p. 10.
68.
Adolf Hilgenfeld, Kritische Untersuchungen über die Evangelien Justus, Halle, 1850, pp. 153–161. See also De Strycker (ed.), La forme la plus ancienne du Protoévangile de Jacques, pp. 6–10 and pp. 10–11, where he comments on Hilgenfeld’s ideas.
69.
Cyrille D. Lambot, “L’homélie du Pseudo-Jérôme sur l’Assomption et l’Évangile de la Nativité de Marie d’après une letter inédite d’Hincmar”, Revue bénédictine, vol. 46, 1934, pp. 265–282.
70.
Rita Beyers, “Libellus de Nativitate Sanctae Mariae”, in Gijsel and Beyers, Libri de nativitate Mariae, p. 28.
71.
The “A” family of the Pseudo-Matthew apocryphal refers to the “textual form A” (with a few subgroups) of some manuscripts; this “family” is formed by manuscripts as those in Rouen, Bibliothèque municipale, U 36 (1390), fols. 52rb–55rb from the eleventh century and A 271 (471) containing documents from various periods, including some from the fifth centuries attributed to Augustine; here De Nativitate Mariae is on fols. 91v–95v; Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, lat. 2674 fol. 64r–70r dated to the twelfth century. There also exists a “B” family of Pseudo-Matthew manuscripts with two subgroups; this category is more homogeneous than “A”. For a comprehensive list of both A and B groups, see Gijsel and Beyers, Libri de nativitate Mariae. Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew, vol. 10, especially from p. 37 on.
72.
Gijsel and Beyers, Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew & Libri de nativitate Mariae, vol. 9, pp. 19–21; vol. 10, p. 28. The Carolingian principles with reference to Mary could be summarised as follows: before anything else she is the Mother of God, and Christ’s divinity confers on her a dignity which supplements her human motherhood. She is also a perpetual virgin. Therefore, it is justified to elevate her above the angels and to make her the first among the saints and also the “Queen of Heaven”. Mary is as well the Intercession with her Son on behalf of the believers. Pascase Radbert, the best writer of the ninth century, thought she was born without the original sin. This was the time when the mariologic reflexion become a cult, and the thesis of the Virgin’s Assumption was most central to theological debates (the feast dedicated to it was the most important celebration vis-à-vis Mary in the ninth century). These principles were the subject of theological literature, poetry, and sometimes of polemics (see, e.g. the Ratramne de Corbie-Paschase Radbert controversy) in the Carolingian period.
73.
Gijsel and Beyer, Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew and Libri de nativitate Mariae, vol. 10, p. 27.
74.
D. C. Lambot, “L’homélie du Pseudo-Jérôme sur l’Assomption et l’Évangile de la Nativité de Marie d’après une letter inédite d’Hincmar”, Revue bénédictine, vol. 46, 1934, pp. 265–282; Gijsel and Beyer 1997: 28–29.
75.
Maxime le Confesseur: Vie de la Vierge, ed. and trans. Michel-Jean van Esbroeck, CSCO, vols. 478–479, Scriptores Iberici 21–22, Leuven: Peeters, 1986. For the Life in earlier Georgian scholarship, see ibid. vol. 1 VIf.; S. Shoemaker, “The Georgian Life of the Virgin attributed to Maximus the Confessor: Its Authenticity (?) and Importance”, Scrinium 2 (2006) 307–328, at 310–312; id. The Life of the Virgin Mary. Maximus Confessor, ed. and trans. With an Introduction by Stephen J. Shoemaker, New Haven: Yale University Press, 2012.
76.
The Life of the Virgin Mary. Maximus Confessor, ed. and trans. S. J. Shoemaker.
77.
For the Life in earlier Georgian scholarship, see Maxime le Confesseur: Vie de la Vierge, ed. and trans. M. van Esbroeck, vol. 1 VIf.; S. Shoemaker, “The Georgian Life of the Virgin attributed to Maximus the Confessor: Its Authenticity (?) and Importance”, Scrinium 2 (2006) 307–328, at 310–312; and id. The Life of the Virgin. Maximus Confessor, “Introduction”, especially pp. 2–3. Korneli Kekelidze discovered the text and he was against its attribution to Maximus.
78.
Three important written witnesses existed, all created (it seems) in the period c. 976–c. 990: the Georgian translation (c. 980–c. 990), John the Geometer’s Life of the Virgin (987–989), and Symeon the Metaphrast’s Life of the Virgin (c. 976–c. 987). For Euthymius’s translation at the end of the tenth century, see Shoemaker, Georgian Life, p. 2 and also van Esbroeck, “Euthyme l’Hagiorite: le traducteur et ses traductions”, Revue des études géorgiennes et caucasiennes 4 (1988), pp. 73–107. On his various translations of Maximus’s works, there are papers in T. Mgaloblishvili and L. Khoperia (eds.), Maximus the Confessor and Georgia, Bennet and Bloom, London, 2009. For John the Geometer’s Life, see Antoine A. Wenger, L’Assomption de la T. S. Vierge dans la tradition byzantine du VI^e au X^e siècle: Études et documents, Archives de l’Orient Chrétien 5, Institut Français d’Études Byzantines, 1955, p. 193; Wenger reads a possible allusion to political events, 976–989, and perhaps a reference to the revolt of Bardas Phocas at Life 69–70, p. 193. The date of Symeon the Metaphrast’s Life is not discussed in the literature, but see Christian Høgel, Symeon Metaphrastes: Rewriting and Canonization, Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press, 2002, esp. p. 74. Shoemaker, Georgian Life, pp. 313f, uses the dates above to refute the suggestion of Simon C. Mimouni, “Vies de la Vierge: état de la question”, Apocrypha 5 (1994), p. 220 n. 36 that Euthymius might depend on John the Geometer. It seems evident that all three authors mentioned at the beginning of this footnote had independent access to a shared model.
79.
Philip Booth, “On the Life of the Virgin attributed to Maximus Confessor”, The Journal of Theological Studies, vol. 66, no. 1, 2015, pp. 149–203. Stephen J. Shoemaker has published a lengthy reply to Booth’s article; it is entitled “The (Pseudo?-) Maximus Life of the Virgin and the Byzantine Marian Tradition”, The Journal of Theological Studies, NS, vol. 67, Pt. 1, April 2016, pp. 115–142. He concludes it by saying that the Life of the Virgin “was probably composed at Mar Saba or one of the other monasteries of Palestine, if not by Maximus, then by some other denizen of the Judaean desert”; p. 142.
80.
Cartlidge and Elliott, Art and the Christian Apocrypha; on pp. 29–30 they have drawn a table to illustrate in summary form the similarities and differences between the Eastern and Western apocryphal traditions with regard to Mary’s infancy.
81.
Origen, Comm. Ser. in Matt. 25 (Klostermann Xl, pp. 42, 14–43, 33).
82.
Basil the Great, “Homilia in Sanctam Christi Generationem/Sermon on the Holy Generation of Christ”, PG 31. 1468 D–1469. A. P. Peeters mentions a few of the traditions regarding Zacharias’s death. In Acta Sanctorum, lll, Brussels, 1910 (Nov.), pp. 1–11.
83.
J. K. Elliott, A Synopsis of the Apocryphal Nativity and Infancy Narratives, Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2006, Mary 1–2, p. 5.
84.
Elliott, A Synopsis of the Apocryphal Nativity, Ps-Matthew 1–2, pp. 3–4.
85.
Elliott, A Synopsis of the Apocryphal Nativity, Ps-Matthew 1, p. 3. As noticed a few times, this translation follows closely The Apocryphal New Testament being the Apocryphal Gospels, Acts, Epistles, and Apocalypses with other narratives and fragments newly translated by Montagues Rhodes James, at the Clarendon Press/University Press, Oxford, New York, Toronto, and so on, 1985 edition (first edition 1924). The two translations only slightly and rarely diverge. It is easy to notice the updating of the language in Elliott’s work if we compare, for example, the quotation in the text above with the following from The Apocryphal New Testament translated by James: “In the histories of the twelve tribes of Israel it is written that there was one Ioacim, exceeding rich: and he offered his gifts twofold, saying: That which is of my superfluity shall be for the whole people, and that which is for my forgiveness shall be for the Lord, for a propitiation unto me”, p. 39.
86.
Elliott, A Synopsis of the Apocryphal Nativity, Ps-Matthew 2b, p. 4.
87.
As stated, Elliott and James’s translations of this text are close, but not identical.
88.
M. R. James, The Apocryphal New Testament, p. 39.
89.
Elliott, A Synopsis of the Apocryphal Nativity, Mary 1–2 C, pp. 4–5.
90.
James, The Apocryphal New Testament, p. 39.
91.
The variant, Eutine, is indicated in a footnote on p. 5 in Elliott’s A Synopsis of the Apocryphal Nativity.
92.
James, The Apocryphal New Testament, p. 38.
93.
De Strycker, La forme la plus ancienne du Protoévangile de Jacques, pp. 69, 73.
94.
Agnes Smith Lewis (ed. and trans.), Apocrypha Syriaca: the Protoevangelium Jacobi and Transitus Mariae [The Protoevangelion of James and the Life of Mary], in: Studia Sinaitica, No. 11, London, 1902, pp. 1–2.
95.
Smith Lewis, Apocrypha Syriaca: the Protoevangelium Jacobi and Transitus Mariae, p. 2.
96.
Elliott, A Synopsis of the Apocryphal Nativity, Protoev. 3 B, pp. 4–5.
97.
Elliott, A Synopsis of the Apocryphal Nativity [Liber Flavus 2–5 (cf. “Ɉ” Compilation 1–4)] B, Protev. 2 B. Anna’s laments, p. 5.
98.
Some MSS. add “Woe is me, to what I am likened? I am not likened to the dumb animals; for even the dumb animals are fruitful before you, O Lord!”
99.
Elliott, A Synopsis of the Apocryphal Nativity, Protoev. 2–3, variant C, p. 6.
100.
James, The Apocryphal New Testament, p. 38.
101.
Or “you have a royal appearance”.
102.
Eliott, A Synopsis of the Apocryphal Nativity, p. 5.
103.
Variant adds “because you have not listened to me”.
104.
Eliott, A Synopsis of the Apocryphal Nativity, p. 5.
105.
Smith Lewis, Apocrypha Syriaca, pp. 1–2.
106.
Smith Lewis, Apocrypha Syriaca, pp. 1–2.
107.
Eliott, A Synopsis of the Apocryphal Nativity, p. 5.
108.
Theodore Hyrtakenos, “Eκφρασις είϛ τόν Παρἀδεισον πης Ὰγίσϛ Αννηϛ πῆς μητρὸϛʹ της Θεοτόκου”/ “Description of the Garden of St. Anne and the Ekphrasis of Gardens”, in Jean François Boissonade (ed.), Anecdota Graeca, Paris: Excusum in Regio Typographeo (5 vols. 1829–1833, reprinted Hildesheim, 1962), vol. 3, pp. 59–70. Mary-Lyon Dolezal and Maria Mavroudi, “Theodore Hyrtakenos’ Description of the Garden of St. Anna and the Ekphrasis of Gardens”, in Antony Littlewood, Henry Maguire, and Joachim Wolschke-Bulmahn (eds.), Byzantine Garden Culture, published by Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection Washington, DC, 2002, p. 107 wrote about the images of Anne’s Annunciation found in the two illustrated versions of James of Kokkinobaphos’s homilies on the Virgin from the second quarter of the twelfth century mentioned above (Vatican Library, gr. 1162, and Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale, gr. 1208), pp. 105–158. They say that the images “are far more evocative than his words”, n. 7 on p. 107. An additional source on Anna’s Annunciation, an anonymous encomium, survives in a fourteenth-century manuscript (Mt. Athos, Vatopedi Monastery, cod. 425). See F. Halkin, Bibliotheca Hagiographica Graeca, Brussels: Peeters, 1957, no. 1. 134d.
109.
Elliott, A Synopsis of the Apocryphal Nativity, Protoev. 4 B, p. 7.
110.
Elliott, A Synopsis of the Apocryphal Nativity, Mary 3–5 A, pp. 10–11.
111.
Idem, Ps-Matthew 3B, pp. 8–9.
112.
Sharon E. J. Gerstel and Robert S. Nelson (eds.), Approaching the Holy Mountain. Art and Liturgy at St Catherine’s Monastery in the Sinai, Turnhout: Brepols, 2010, p. 374; fig. 117. (Reproduced through the courtesy of the Michigan-Princeton-Alexandria Expedition to Mount Sinai.)
113.
Elliott, A Synopsis of the Apocryphal Nativity, Protev. 4 B, p. 7.
114.
Idem, Ps-Matthew 3 B, p. 9.
115.
Idem, Protev. 4B, p. 7.
116.
Idem, Protev. 4 B, p. 8.
117.
De Strycker, La forme la plus ancienne du Protoévangile, pp. 87–88.
118.
Elliott, A Synopsis of the Apocryphal Nativity, Ps-Matthew, 4, 5, p. 12.
119.
Idem, Protev. 5: 2 D, p. 12; emphasis added.
120.
Calendar and Lectionary (Revised Julian style), The Fellowship of Saint John the Baptist, 2016, p. 31.
121.
Idem, Protev. 5: 2 F, p. 13; emphasis added.
122.
J. K. Elliott, A Synopsis of the Apocryphal Nativity, p. 13; emphasis added.
123.
Elliott, A Synopsis of the Apocryphal Nativity, p. 13; emphasis added.
124.
As a rule, in icons the covering of the hands is a sign of reverence which saints or angels manifest towards the Mother of God and Jesus Christ. Ouspensky and Lossky, The Meaning of Icons, Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1982, p. 165.
125.
Constantine Cavarnos (ed.), Byzantine Sacred Art: Selected Writings of the Contemporary Greek Icon Painter Fotis Kontoglous on the Sacred Arts According to the Tradition of Eastern Orthodox, Belmont, M.A.: Institute for Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies, 1985, p. 97.
126.
James (ed. and trans.), The Apocryphal New Testament: being the Apocryphal Gospels, Acts, Epistles, and Apocalypses, with other narratives and fragments, p. 41.
127.
Alice-Mary Talbot (ed., trans.), Synaxarion of Constantinople. Byzantine saints’ lives in translation, Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection 1998; St. Nicodemus the Hagiorite made also a translation in the late eighteenth century.
128.
Balaban Bara, The Political and Artistic Program of Prince Petru Rareş, doctoral dissertation.
129.
Balaban Bara, The Political and Artistic Program of Prince Petru Rareş, Annex 1, p. xxii. See also Alfredo Tradigo, Icons and Saints of the Eastern Orthodox Church, trans. Stephen Sartarelli, Mondadori Electa, Milan, 2004; J. Paul Getty Museum, Los Angeles, 2006.
130.
Saint John of Damascus/Andrew Louth (ed.), The Treatises against the Iconoclasts, St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, Crestwood, NY, 2003.
131.
Sugawara, “Anna Eleousa: Representation of Tenderness”, p. 186.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Faculty of History and Wolfson College, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
Elena Ene D-Vasilescu

Authors

Elena Ene D-Vasilescu
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Ene D-Vasilescu, E. (2018). St. Anne as the Prototype of a Saint Connected with Healing and Milk Nourishing: Introducing Various Additional Textual Sources, Including the Apocrypha. In: Heavenly Sustenance in Patristic Texts and Byzantine Iconography. New Approaches to Byzantine History and Culture. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98986-0_6

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98986-0_6
Published: 23 October 2018
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-98985-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-98986-0
eBook Packages: HistoryHistory (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics