Did Mary compose the Magnificat?

[Cathy]

This morning at Mass, we were handed a commentary on Luke 1:46-56 beginning this way: "Very probably, Luke composed the ‘Magnificat’ (or Canticle of Mary - today’s gospel) from the canticle of Hannah in 1 Samuel 2. This canticle is today’s Responsorial Psalm. Luke wants to emphasize that Jesus, like Samuel, was a ‘child of promise.’

After Mass, I spoke with the deacon who prepared this commentary, and he said it came from a “scripture scholar.” He said I am a pharisaical fundamentalist to insist that Mary, a devout Jew who probably had memorized Hanna’s canticle, actually spoke these words through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Do any of you know of Magisterial teachings regarding the Magnificat of Mary?

 

[Catholic_Dude]

That sounds like liberal “scholarship” at its finest. The fact is Mary really did say those words.

The Church has such a high view of Mary and the Magnificat that the idea of it being a fictitious event is almost blasphemous and incompatible with traditional Catholicism.

 

[The_Truthinator]

There’s nothing wrong with believing that Luke or another composed the Magnificat (some believe it to have been an early Christian hymn, save, perhaps, verse 48) anymore than it is to believe that Mary sang it.

I like very much to believe the latter, but I wouldn’t bet my salvation on it, to be honest. It reflects trememdous truths in any case, and that’s what counts. What’s more, regardless of its composer, it is inspired: the Word of God.

Also, Mary probably knew much of Hannah’s Canticle by heart and thus could have drawn on it if she indeed was its source. Luke could have also done so…

Don’t fret over small stuff–and try to avoid blaming your priest for being “liberal” as the above poster did. Really, when you get to Heaven, it won’t be such a big deal. lol

Pax

 

[TOME]

Cathy,
Again we are addressing the question whether or not the Infancy Narratives are literal accounts and exact quotes of all that took place around the birth of Christ or does the inerrancy of these accounts means something else - perhaps more than historical records.

I think it is wrong to assert that if I do not approach the Infancy Narratives as accurate historical records I am borderline heretic (at best) nor am I going against Catholic teaching, although it is a position that some definitely consider not to be traditional.

This is not the same position of those scripture scholars who we constantly see in the media who as we know deny the Incarnation and Resurrction. Rather, I believe I am more in tune with those scholars and theologians who sincerely accept the reality of the Incarnation yet reject the Infancy Narratives as accurate historical records but this does not mean the Infancy Narratives are fiction, just the opposite, that are records of the really real history of mankind - Salvation History narrated in the mode and style of writing common at the times the gospels were written.

However, that said I will add that I think your deacon was wrong but from a pastoral sense - he shouldn’t have labelled you a “Pharisee” for your beliefs. One thing that is very clear and almost all scripture scholars (Catholic and Protestant, Liberal and Conservative) agree on that Mary was a devote Jew. As a devote Jew her whole life was lived in the light of the Word of God but more so because, as Catholics, the Word himself, by the power of the Holy Spirit, took flesh in her very person.

So, if I was this deacon I would have said it is not unreasonable to believe she actually did say this words. But I would have pointed out that scholars have found several factors that stand out which brings into question whether or not Mary’s said the words of her “Canticle” as presented in Luke. First as you mentioned, there is the similarity with the “Canticle of Hannah”. Also, “Mary’s Canticle” just doesn’t seem to fit in the natural flow events surrounding her song of praise.

However, this doesn’t make “Mary’s Canticle” a work of fiction. As Catholics, we believe that God’s Revelation has come to us through the written word of scripture in union with the Oral Tradition of the Apostles. And we believe that the oral tradition of the apostles preceeded the written scriptures as attested to in Acts 2 vs 42 and 1 Corthians 11 vs 23; 15 vs 3 and the Apostolic Tradition was proclaimed and celebrated in the Liturgy of the Church again attested to in scripture itself e.x. 1 Corithians 11, Philippians 2: 5 - 11 and Matthew 28 vs 19. Scripture scholars have pointed out that “Mary’s Canticle” seems to have its roots in a liturgical hymn of the Jewish-Christian community, that is, the Church of Jerusalem. This means this is how the Church from a very early time saw and understood who our Blessed Mother was and her role in Salvation History and proclaimed this reality. It was not as if Luke created “Mary’s Canticle” rather he used a liturgical hymn known from the very birth of the Church.

If it could be proven beyond a shadow of doubt that Mary’s Canticle wasn’t spoken by Mary as presented in Luke, doesn’t negate the reality of her words because being used by Luke, as he did, shows that the Church always understood our Blessed Mother is the “Lived Reality” of her song of praise of the Father.

 

[Holly3278]

Wow. That was very uncharitable for your deacon to call you a pharisaical fundamentalist.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I think Tome’s response was spot on. If you look at any study bible, the Magnificat is linked to Samual and Hannah’s canticle. There is certainly no evidence that Mary did not recite it and add her own statements. It is also quite possible that Luke wrote it himself as a way of showing Mary’s known great fidelity to God. I doubt it is of much import since it is the theological message that is being proffered and what we should take from the canticle. I agree your Deacon had a poor choice of words in responding to you. Do you and he have differences like this often, or was this the first time?

 

[Joe_Kelley]

I have never understood the view that Mary was unqualified to compose such a prayer; that it would have taken a professional to do it. * This seems to come from scholars who are overly obsessed with their own competence.

Mary had a several days journey walking to Elizabeth’s. One presumes she spent the time meditating on what the angel told her and how it fit with her knowledge of the prophets. The Magnificat seems the likely result of such a meditation.*

 

[epostle]

Scholars can speculate all they like. Luke 46-56 is part of the inspired Word of God and exactly who MAY have wrote it or first proclaimed it is not a problem for me. God’s truth is not confined to limited human language or human proof-texting or who wrote or said what or when. The Magnificat is true. Period.

Notice that Protestants in their discussions of Mary NEVER quote these verses, (exept verse 47, when it suits their agenda) and we don’t quote them often enough.

Luke.1 Verses 46 to 56

[46] And Mary said, “My soul magnifies the Lord,
[47] and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,
[48] for he has regarded the low estate of his handmaiden.
For behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed;
[49] for he who is mighty has done great things for me,
and holy is his name.
[50] And his mercy is on those who fear him
from generation to generation.
[51] He has shown strength with his arm,
he has scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts,
[52] he has put down the mighty from their thrones,
and exalted those of low degree;
[53] he has filled the hungry with good things,
and the rich he has sent empty away.
[54] He has helped his servant Israel,
in remembrance of his mercy,
[55] as he spoke to our fathers,
to Abraham and to his posterity for ever.”

[56] And Mary remained with her about three months, and returned to her home. (forshadowed in 2 Sam. 6:11 and 1 Chron. 13:14)

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I have never understood the view that Mary was unqualified to compose such a prayer; that it would have taken a professional to do it. * This seems to come from scholars who are overly obsessed with their own competence.

**I had never read that some claim Mary unqualified to compose it. Could you direct me to some site to that effect. I’d be most interested to read their rationale. Yes, I surely would like to read where it must have been composed by a man. You could well be right, as soon as you give me a site, I’ll get on it and get back with you. ***

Mary had a several days journey walking to Elizabeth’s. One presumes she spent the time meditating on what the angel told her and how it fit with her knowledge of the prophets. The Magnificat seems the likely result of such a meditation.

**I don’t know if its likely or not, but its certainly possible. I doubt we will ever know, unless some writing is found that somehow makes it clear. **

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Scholars can speculate all they like. Luke 46-56 is part of the inspired Word of God and exactly who MAY have wrote it or first proclaimed it is not a problem for me. God’s truth is not confined to limited human language or human proof-texting or who wrote or said what or when. The Magnificat is true. Period.

**I would agree. You make a fine statement of your belief. **

Notice that Protestants in their discussions of Mary NEVER quote these verses, (exept verse 47, when it suits their agenda) and we don’t quote them often enough.

**Why do proddies not quote the Magnificat? I’ve never heard this before. And can you explain what their agenda is? I assumed it was like ours. **

Luke.1 Verses 46 to 56

[46] And Mary said, “My soul magnifies the Lord,
[47] and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,
[48] for he has regarded the low estate of his handmaiden.
For behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed;
[49] for he who is mighty has done great things for me,
and holy is his name.
[50] And his mercy is on those who fear him
from generation to generation.
[51] He has shown strength with his arm,
he has scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts,
[52] he has put down the mighty from their thrones,
and exalted those of low degree;
[53] he has filled the hungry with good things,
and the rich he has sent empty away.
[54] He has helped his servant Israel,
in remembrance of his mercy,
[55] as he spoke to our fathers,
to Abraham and to his posterity for ever.”

[56] And Mary remained with her about three months, and returned to her home. (forshadowed in 2 Sam. 6:11 and 1 Chron. 13:14)

 

[ora_pro_nobis]

I was brought up in the Church of England and we most definitely learnt about the Magnificat. I remember a teacher in primary school telling us we should know it off by heart as one of the most beautiful passages in the whole Bible.
Many Anglican churches have a “Magnificat” window, depicting Our Lady visiting St Elizabeth.

 

[Fidelis]

The teaching Church seems to attribute the Magnificat to Our Lady, calling it “hers.” From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

722 The Holy Spirit prepared Mary by his grace. It was fitting that the mother of him in whom “the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily” should herself be “full of grace.” She was, by sheer grace, conceived without sin as the most humble of creatures, the most capable of welcoming the inexpressible gift of the Almighty. It was quite correct for the angel Gabriel to greet her as the “Daughter of Zion”: “Rejoice.” It is the thanksgiving of the whole People of God, and thus of the Church, which Mary in her canticle lifts up to the Father in the Holy Spirit while carrying within her the eternal Son.

2619 That is why the Canticle of Mary, the Magnificat (Latin) or Megalynei (Byzantine) is the song both of the Mother of God and of the Church; the song of the Daughter of Zion and of the new People of God; the song of thanksgiving for the fullness of graces poured out in the economy of salvation and the song of the “poor” whose hope is met by the fulfillment of the promises made to our ancestors, “to Abraham and to his posterity for ever.”

2097 To adore God is to acknowledge, in respect and absolute submission, the “nothingness of the creature” who would not exist but for God. To adore God is to praise and exalt him and to humble oneself, as Mary did in the Magnificat, confessing with gratitude that he has done great things and holy is his name. The worship of the one God sets man free from turning in on himself, from the slavery of sin and the idolatry of the world.

2622 The prayers of the Virgin Mary, in her Fiat and Magnificat, are characterized by the generous offering of her whole being in faith.

After all, Luke 1:36 starts out "And Mary said…"

What’s so confusing about that?

 

[SpiritMeadow]

The teaching Church seems to attribute the Magnificat to Our Lady, calling it “hers.” From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
After all, Luke 1:36 starts out "And Mary said…"

What’s so confusing about that?

I’m not sure what you think this means. Of course it is Mary’s canticle, it obviously cannot be attached to anyone else. The fact that luke leads into it in this fashion is not evidence, its simply literary device, one every writer would use. I really fail to see why this issue is important. We don’t know if Mary composed it or not, and like I said, we likely may never know. I think there are some interesting questions to raise if one assumes she did write it. It is unlikely she could either read or write, most people of her time did not, thus she would have had to memorize it, and then apparently someone would have reduced it to writing themselves or it simply remained an oral statement that Luke was aware of. If oral, of course, there are additional problems of how closely it may have resembled the original.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

. . . It is unlikely she could either read or write, most people of her time did not, thus she would have had to memorize it, . . quote] What is your source for that? I believe most Jews could read Scripture, note Jesus reading in the synagogue. If as many believe she was raised in the Temple it is most likely she would be able to read.

Also just because we do not memorize things don’t underestimate the ability to memorize in earlier ages.

 

[Fidelis]

I’m not sure what you think this means. Of course it is Mary’s canticle, it obviously cannot be attached to anyone else. The fact that luke leads into it in this fashion is not evidence, its simply literary device

, one every writer would use. As there is no direct textual evidence to support “Mary said…” as being a literary device, that is mere speculation. There’s nothing wrong with speculation, but based on speculation one cannot say in such a *definitive *manner that Luke’s use of this phrase “is not evidence” or "it’s simply a literary device.

I really fail to see why this issue is important.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

SpiritMeadow;3118806:

. . . It is unlikely she could either read or write, most people of her time did not, thus she would have had to memorize it, . . quote] What is your source for that? I believe most Jews could read Scripture, note Jesus reading in the synagogue. If as many believe she was raised in the Temple it is most likely she would be able to read.

**I have none of course no more than you do. Mary is portrayed as being a simple girl, not one who was sophisticated or from an elite family. If as you contend most jews could read that would have been men and not women. Why do many believe she was raised in the temple? I was unaware that girls were raised in the temple. Please tell me more, this is most intriguing. **

Also just because we do not memorize things don’t underestimate the ability to memorize in earlier ages.

I’m sure it really has nothing to do with evolution. While oral traditions were used more no doubt, there were professional storytellers whose job it was to remember the stories with some kind of exactitude. I don’t think there is reason to believe it was common to all.

Again, why in the world could this matter? Is not the Magnifcat however constructed valueable in and of itself as a testament to great faith and obedience? There is always this searching for the tree and forgeting the forest.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

This morning at Mass, we were handed a commentary on Luke 1:46-56 beginning this way: "Very probably, Luke composed the ‘Magnificat’ (or Canticle of Mary - today’s gospel) from the canticle of Hannah in 1 Samuel 2. This canticle is today’s Responsorial Psalm. Luke wants to emphasize that Jesus, like Samuel, was a ‘child of promise.’

After Mass, I spoke with the deacon who prepared this commentary, and he said it came from a “scripture scholar.” He said I am a pharisaical fundamentalist to insist that Mary, a devout Jew who probably had memorized Hanna’s canticle, actually spoke these words through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Do any of you know of Magisterial teachings regarding the Magnificat of Mary?

1. There is none​

1. There is indeed a close relationship between the canticles of Hannah & Mary; it is entirely probable that one is modelled on the other.
2. There is no doctrinal reason for treating the text of Magnificat as though no one but Mary could have composed it - people are free to believe what they wish in regard to this matter. The authorship, unity, etc., of the Magnificat is not a point of doctrine - conclusions about it must be reached from study of its literary & theological detail; not by ignoring them.

It might help if we knew the exact words on all sides - lacking them, I hope that helps

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Joe Kelley;3118855:

I’m sure it really has nothing to do with evolution. While oral traditions were used more no doubt, there were professional storytellers whose job it was to remember the stories with some kind of exactitude. I don’t think there is reason to believe it was common to all.

Again, why in the world could this matter? Is not the Magnifcat however constructed valueable in and of itself as a testament to great faith and obedience? There is always this searching for the tree and forgeting the forest.

About Mary in the Temple - that she was brought up there, is asserted in the Protevangelium of James; a geographically inaccurate, historically valueless but attractively-written early example of a NT Apocryphal Infancy Gospel. It’s of interest as a second-century witness to Marian devotion, which survived condemnation by a Roman council in the fifth century to become very influential in both East & West as a source of themes for Christian art. All that is wrong is its worthlessness as history - it is a pious NT Apocryphal equivalent of the Da Vinci Code (length apart); for neither is of any value as a relation of fact, & both are treated as though they were.​

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Henri Daniel-Rops, in Daily Life in the Time of Jesus, notes that most Jews could read and write. He also notes that the language was particularly adapted to easy memorization of long passages.

Re women; while they were denied schooling the Talmud specifies that Every man is required to teach his daughter the Torah. Women were expected to know the Law well so they might instruct their sons and urge their husbands to the fulfilment of their religious obligations.

I suspect that Mary was much more familiar with Hannah than the gentile Luke.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

About Mary in the Temple - that she was brought up there, is asserted in the Protevangelium of James; a geographically inaccurate, historically valueless but attractively-written early example of a NT Apocryphal Infancy Gospel. It’s of interest as a second-century witness to Marian devotion, which survived condemnation by a Roman council in the fifth century to become very influential in both East & West as a source of themes for Christian art. All that is wrong is its worthlessness as history - it is a pious NT Apocryphal equivalent of the Da Vinci Code (length apart); for neither is of any value as a relation of fact, & both are treated as though they were.​

Thanks for the help geer!

Henri Daniel-Rops, in Daily Life in the Time of Jesus, notes that most Jews could read and write. He also notes that the language was particularly adapted to easy memorization of long passages.

I am not familiar with your source. Can you give me some background on Henri Daniel Rops? Education, occupation, present employment?

Re women; while they were denied schooling the Talmud specifies that Every man is required to teach his daughter the Torah. Women were expected to know the Law well so they might instruct their sons and urge their husbands to the fulfilment of their religious obligations.

**I see, this would involve the first 5 books of the the bible then, and would not require reading or writing necessrily I assume. **

I suspect that Mary was much more familiar with Hannah than the gentile Luke.

Yes, I see, you suspect this.