@Johann and @SincereSeeker To be honest, im now against it, but when i read the Poem of Man-God i had to bring this up for further scrutiny. Now I cannot stop myself from telling the truth..
On research i found that
Maria Valtorta’s poem of the Man-God is a five-volume work. The work purports to “fill in the gaps” left by canonical Gospels, offering vivid descriptions of events, dialogues and even the inner thoughts of Jesus, Mary and the apostles. Again some like Pope Pius XII and certain theologians say its divinely inspired supplement to Scripture, but im hesitant.
To substantiate the Orthodox Critique, let us examine it
- Historical and Cultural Anachronisms
Valtorta text contains numerous anachronisms that betray its modern origin. For instance, she describes Jesus using a screwdriver, an tool not invented at Jesus’ time. This is not a trivial error but a sign of imaginative reconstruction.
THe poem includes detailed descriptions of daily life in the first century Palestine that are inconsistent with the archaeological and historical evidences i found in the internet. For example
Valtorta’s portrayal of agricultural practices and clothing, social norms often reflects what i feel as romanticized 20th century European perspective rather than the realities of Second Temple Judaism, @Johann can attest to the fact that i have learnt the Second Temple context well to know whats in alignment with it.
The work’s depiction of Jewish culture occasionally veers into problematic stereotypes.
One is that Jesus condemns the Jewish people as a “…” (i will not say it, it was a curse) This is in such a STARK CONTRAST to the Orthodox understanding of Christ’s universal love and the Church’s rejection of collective racial condemnation. - Theological errors
Orthodox Christology as defined by Ecumenical councils affirm the hypostatic union of Christ divine and human natures fully united without confusion or division. Valtorta’s poem often overemphasizes His humanity at the expense of His divinity. He speaks in a lengthy, modern sounding manner unlike the authoritative, concise teachings of the Gospels.
A very big error of Valtorta’s account of Christ Temptation . She claims that Satan primarly sought to tempt Jesus with impurity…lets leave the next part as @SincereSeeker and @Johann can search for themselves, i dont want to go there and write blasphemies here.
THIS IS VERY STARK CONTRADICTION with the Orthodox teaching that Christ being sinless and divine, was tempted externally but NOT INTERNALLY SWAYED by sinful desires. St.Gregory the Theologian emphasises that Christ’s temptations were external texts of obedience. Valtorta’s depictions borders on Nestorianism.
The poem attributes to Jesus the statement that Eve’s temptation involved sensuous caressing by the serpent, with her sin beginning alone and being completed with Adam in Vol 1 which i read. This interpretation lacks any basis in Genesis or patristic exegesis, which views Eve’s sin as one of disobedience and pride. St.Irenaeus of Lyons in Against Heresies in Book 5 Chapter 21 describes the Fall as a failure of trust in God. - Mariological excesses
Valtorta’s portrayal of the Virgin Mary aligns with the modern Roman Catholic Marian Theology, depicting her as a propagandist for doctrines like the Immaculate conceptions, and Mediatrix of all graces, foreign to Orthodox.
The Orthodox venerate her as the Theotokos, the ever-Virgin Mother of God but her role is subordinate to Christ’s and her depiction in the Gospel is marked by humility and reserve as we see in Luke 1:38.
The Poem has irreverent language where Jesus calls Mary as “Mummy” or “mamacita” which diminishes the reverence due to the Theotokos in the Orthodox tradition. St.Cyril of Alexandria in his homilies at the Council of Ephesus emphasizes Mary’s exalted role as the Mother of God, not a sentimental figure. - Inauthentic Tone and Style:
The Poem’s verbose and sentimental style contrast sharply with the Gospels’ economy of words and authority. The Evangelists, inspired by the Holy Spirit, convey profound truths with brevity, as we seen in John 21:25, where St.John acknowledges that not all of Christ’s deeds were recorded, yet what was written suffices for salvation. Valtorta’s lenghty dialogues, filled with modern idioms and psychological detail, resemble a novel, thats what i feel.
The portrayal of the Apostle John as having “the face of a young girl” with the “gaze of lover” introduces an inappropriate tone, potentially implying a distorted relationship to Christ. THIS IS UTTERLY foreign to the Orthodox veneration of St.John as the Theologian and Beloved Disciple, whose writings reflect profound spiritual insight.