Did Mary compose the Magnificat?

[Joe_Kelley]

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

Yes, I see, you suspect this.

Henri Daniel-Rops was born in France in 1901. He is the author the over seventy books, including the monumental ten-volume History of the Church in Christ. Before his death in 1965, he was the editor-in-chief of the Twentieth Century Encyclopedia of Catholicism, which has been termed “the greatest source of Catholic knowledge ever assmbled.”

Cover quote from Servant Books

“An absolutely fascinating account of the ordinary things our Lord saw and ate and did … a learned book that is a pleasure to read.” Anne Freemantle, Commonweal

“Invaluable to all who give religious instruction as well as to the private reader who would enlarge his background information to make his study of the Bible more profitable.” Times Literary Supplement

“Preacher, retreat directors, catechists and those who teach the Bible at any level will bind Daniel-Rops’ book a very useful source of information.” Frederick L. Moriarty, S.J., America

“Unusually comprehensive and is wrtitten in a clear and attractive style that will appeal to manyt readers.” New York Times Book Review

The Foreword to the American Edition is written by George Martin.

Of course it is only my suspecion that these are competent sources. Suggest you try Google if you want more - .

 

[mschrank]

It was a long time ago. Objective proof does not exist. Bible gets benefit of the doubt since the guy who wrote it rose from the dead.

Case closed… really, some people make more out of this than they have to. Look, we don’t “know” that Mary composed it like we know that New York is a big city in North America, however, we do have context, plus a good indication that she might have, so the Bible gets the benefit of the doubt.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Cover quote from Servant Books

“An absolutely fascinating account of the ordinary things our Lord saw and ate and did … a learned book that is a pleasure to read.” Anne Freemantle, Commonweal

“Invaluable to all who give religious instruction as well as to the private reader who would enlarge his background information to make his study of the Bible more profitable.” Times Literary Supplement

“Preacher, retreat directors, catechists and those who teach the Bible at any level will bind Daniel-Rops’ book a very useful source of information.” Frederick L. Moriarty, S.J., America

“Unusually comprehensive and is wrtitten in a clear and attractive style that will appeal to manyt readers.” New York Times Book Review

The Foreword to the American Edition is written by George Martin.

Of course it is only my suspecion that these are competent sources. Suggest you try Google if you want more - .

Thanks!

 

[SpiritMeadow]

It was a long time ago. Objective proof does not exist. Bible gets benefit of the doubt since the guy who wrote it rose from the dead.

Case closed… really, some people make more out of this than they have to. Look, we don’t “know” that Mary composed it like we know that New York is a big city in North America, however, we do have context, plus a good indication that she might have, so the Bible gets the benefit of the doubt.

Ummm…Jesus, most unfortunately did not write a thing. I agree the discussion has very little importance, still we don’t do exegetics by simply giving the bible the “benefit of the doubt.”

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

It was a long time ago. Objective proof does not exist. Bible gets benefit of the doubt since the guy who wrote it rose from the dead.

Case closed… really, some people make more out of this than they have to. Look, we don’t “know” that Mary composed it like we know that New York is a big city in North America, however, we do have context, plus a good indication that she might have, so the Bible gets the benefit of the doubt.

FWIW​

• If we’re going to be picky - Jesus wrote not a word of the Bible
• And it doesn’t need “the benefit of the doubt” - it’s not on trial

 

[jblake]

SpiritMeadow:

It is unlikely she could either read or write, most people of her time did not, thus she would have had to memorize it,

a) There is no evidence either way that Mary could , or could not read and write. This is not the case with Jesus. The Gospels attest to him being able to both read, and write.
What we can do, is look at at literacy rates for the Roman Empire, paying attention to who could read and write. Then apply that to the odds of whether or not Mary could read and write.

b) People can memorize things. The Mahabharat was extent in oral form for at least a millennium prior to being written.

Side note 1: In the 1990’s, I read about a Protestant Preacher who was weeping that he had learned to read the bible. he had been preaching for years, having memorized the entire Bible, from listening to people who read it to him.

Side note 2: “Milk” was an itinerant preacher on the minefields of southern Africa. He was illiterate, but preached a sermon every week, to whoever would hear, wherever he could gather together a crowd for church. He had memorized the Bible, by listening to it being read.

Side Note 3: Until the beginning of the twentieth Century, students who applied to University of Cairo had to demonstrate that they knew the Q’ran, by reciting it, in its entirety, at one setting.

c) From the Gospels, we know that Mary was devoted to God. In the Apocryphal Gospels, Mary is presented as a “Child of the Temple”. In either instance, it would be reasonable that she had heard the passages that the Magnificat is derived from. As such, she could have easily memorized them.

If oral, of course, there are additional problems of how closely it may have resembled the original.

Whilst that is an issue, most material that is created to be transmitted orally, is designed so that the essence is not distorted, even if they details are. Which leaves the question of “how important are the details?”

xan

jonathon

 

[Verbum]

Hi Fidelis,

The fact that the Church considers the Magnificat a magnificent hymn is not really pertinent to this thread. Throughout the Bible,hymns are inserted into the narration, and one can justifiably believe that they are meant to express the sentiments of those purported to recite them as well as the solemnity of the moment in the history of salvation.

Certainly the hymn reflects Mary’s sentiments about God and God’s sentiments about Mary. But one can be “faithful” and not necessarily believe that Mary burst into song at this precise moment.

Tome has written a very thoughtful post, and I urge you to meditate on it.

Verbum

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Hi Fidelis,

The fact that the Church considers the Magnificat a magnificent hymn is not really pertinent to this thread. Throughout the Bible,hymns are inserted into the narration, and one can justifiably believe that they are meant to express the sentiments of those purported to recite them as well as the solemnity of the moment in the history of salvation.

Certainly the hymn reflects Mary’s sentiments about God and God’s sentiments about Mary. But one can be “faithful” and not necessarily believe that Mary burst into song at this precise moment.

Tome has written a very thoughtful post, and I urge you to meditate on it.

Verbum

well said.

 

[Fidelis]

Hi Fidelis,

The fact that the Church considers the Magnificat a magnificent hymn is not really pertinent to this thread.

I agree, especially since I never argued this.

Throughout the Bible,hymns are inserted into the narration, and one can justifiably believe that they are meant to express the sentiments of those purported to recite them as well as the solemnity of the moment in the history of salvation.

With all due respect, this sounds to me as just a patronising way of saying (without direct evidence) that the speaker probably did not compose a particular hymm.

Certainly the hymn reflects Mary’s sentiments about God and God’s sentiments about Mary. But one can be “faithful” and not necessarily believe that Mary burst into song at this precise moment.

One doesn’t have to believe that “Mary burst into song at this precise moment” to believe she composed the Magnificat, which is the original question of this thread. Whether that was the case, or she refined it later in her retelling it to Luke, the author of the Gospel in which it was found, there is still no reason to believe she did not recite some form of it at the moment of the Visitation, or that she was not the composer.

Tome has written a very thoughtful post, and I urge you to meditate on it.

With all due respect to Tome, I find his post not so much thoughtful and worthy of meditation, as it was patronising and heavily weighted with the type of “critical scholarship” approach (which remember, is scholarly opinion and speculation, and NOT the official teaching of the Church) that I have found turns off more Catholics from studying the Bible than any other source. Of course, you or Tome, or anyone else are free to buy into scholarly speculation, and if it helps you, then God bless you. But for most ordinary Catholics it is unhelpful and a turn off to Scripture reading, especially if it’s proponents are strident in insisting Scripture must be read just that way, or one is an ignoramus or a fundamentalist.

God knows I am not a fundamentalist and I own and have studied more types of these critical commentaries than I care to remember, but I wholeheartedly agree with Pope Benedict VI in his book “Jesus of Nazareth” that whatever their value, these methods definitely have their limits and even their dangers.

 

[Verbum]

Hi Faithful,

Jesus of Nazareth" that whatever their value, these methods definitely have their limits and even their dangers

I agree wholeheartedly. But the coin has another side. And I urge you to meditate on both sides.

Verbum

 

[Fidelis]

Hi Faithful,

Jesus of Nazareth" that whatever their value, these methods definitely have their limits and even their dangers

I agree wholeheartedly. But the coin has another side. And I urge you to meditate on both sides.

Verbum

I thought I had made it pretty clear that I have studied both sides of the coin for many years and in some depth. I have come down on one side of the debate, and some have come down on another. I hope you’re not of a mind that since I don’t embrace the position that you do I am somehow lacking in openmindedness or ignoring all the data.

As someone said earlier, one can be a faithful Catholic and personally hold a critical aproach to Scripture. I wholeheartedly agree. And as I said earlier, if it is helpful to you, God bless you. And as I said, I personally don’t reject that approach (sometimes, if applied as a non-dominant part of the whole exegetical picture, it is quite helpful). But please keep in mind that there are people that for well-founded reasons don’t *wholeheartedly embrace runaway *critical scholarship with its hermenuetic of suspicion, and so don’t find the critical method always helpful (to put it mildly). But these are *also * just as faithful (and just as intelligent and educated) Catholics. Forcing the issue on them by insisting they embrace speculative scholarship is the mirror image of the fundamentalist insisting everyone accept a literalistic reading of the Bible – one begins to resent the inference that “if you don’t read it this way you are wrong, deluded, or backwards.” Or, to frame it in the context of this thread:

** “Did Mary compose the Magnificat? The Bible seems to say she did”

“Well, since it is such a long, complex and beautiful hymm; and because it seems in other places in the Bible such hymms were often inserted; and because Mary was probably a young illiterate oppressed female bumpkin; and since it was such a long time ago; and since Luke probably got third-hand information from Q — probably not.”

“I see. Know anyone that wants to buy a slightly used Bible?”**

 

[Joe_Kelley]

It is my opinion that the ordinary Christian should take the simplest explanation for a biblical passage.until there is strong evidence against it. [Something along the lines of Occam’s Razor]

On the other hand the professional scholar must support the most complex expation if he is to create a publishable paper and achieve professional recognition.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

It is my opinion that the ordinary Christian should take the simplest explanation for a biblical passage.until there is strong evidence against it. [Something along the lines of Occam’s Razor]

Explanations can be simple, & totally inadequate - by applying Occam’s Razor, one could very well conclude that Jesus was a fanatic who made unfulfilled prophecies, was crucified, & was said to have been raised from the dead by a pack of lying peasants who were not even capable of getting their story straight - which is why the gospels bristle with contradictions. Deluded prophets & crucified peasants were quite common - Jesus is merely the best-known. It is after all absurd to claim that Jews would believe in a crucified & incarnate God. Why has not returned - because his body was thrown out after the crucifixion, & in all likelihood eaten by carrion.​

But how can so many be wrong? Easily - that they can, is implicit in Christian argument against Islam. What Christians fail to understand is that Jesus is no more a prophet or holy man than Muhammad. Tested by its fruits, Christianity has been an utter disaster for the human race

And all this comes of applying Occam’s Razor. To appeal to faith violates its application, & is completely needless: Jesus can be perfectly well accounted for without confusing the issue by appealing to anything so airy-fairy - which is the only way of escaping the application of the Razor to the absurdities of belief in Jesus.

But how many Christians would accept this economical explanation ?

Furthermore, anti-critical exegesis is often extremely contorted: as in the contortions of those who are determined to make Genesis 6-8 refer to a universal Flood; or to make a day in Gen. 1 mean something other than a day; or to make the star of Matthew 2 into a comet. Critical scholarship OTOH can take the text without kicking its face in until it promises to yield only those results that suggest it is inerrant.

On the other hand the professional scholar must support the most complex expation if he is to create a publishable paper and achieve professional recognition.

If it’s permissible to use that argument, then exactly the same low motives can be imputed to Benedict XVI, & with as much reason - there is as much equity in, & as much evidence for, the one imputation as for the other.​

The readiness with which critical scholars are accused of ignorance, unorthodoxy, lack of integrity, low motives, unbelief & the like, without one scintilla of evidence, let alone proof, against any of them, is an utter disgrace.

 

[Fidelis]

Furthermore, anti-critical exegesis is often extremely contorted: as in the contortions of those who are determined to make Genesis 6-8 refer to a universal Flood; or to make a day in Gen. 1 mean something other than a day; or to make the star of Matthew 2 into a comet. Critical scholarship OTOH can take the text without kicking its face in until it promises to yield only those results that suggest it is inerrant.

To be honest, you must acknowledge (along with Pope Benedict XVI) that critical scholarship has inherent exploitable flaws as well. As a method that necessarily utilizes a hermenuetic of suspicion, it’s net effect in deconstructing the text is often (and, arguably, probably unintentionally) to de-spiritualize the Scriptures until they are seen by the average person to be dry as dust.

Thus, you have the revelation that Flood is entirely mythological (in the basest sense of being a nice fable, like “The Hobbit”), that the Jews were never slaves in Egypt, the burning bush was a natural phenomena, that Moses and the Israelites lucked out by catching the Sea of Reeds at low tide, that Mary was too dull to compose the Magnificat, or that Magi explicitly mentioned in the Bible did not even exist (this last courtesy of the current Archbishop of Canterbury:
splendoroftruth.com/curtjester/archives/008584.php

As Flannery O’Connor quipped about the Eucharist “If it’s all just symbolic, then to hell with the whole thing!”