Did Mary Know?

[tafan]

Blue Horizon:

Tafan
You are not really facing the question head on.

I have faced the question head on. In post 14, for example I gave several references to what Mary, Joseph, and Zachariah and Elizabeth were told about Jesus (although we do not have the details about how Elizabeth was told, it is obviously she was told directly since Zachariah was mute at the time).

These taken together make it should make it obvious that she knew Jesus was God incarnate.

When, in post 17 you asked for references to how it would have been interpretted by Jews at that time, I focused on the one statement, that Jesus would forgive sins. And I faced that one head on. There is no doubt that the Jews only thought God could forgive sins, that is plain from the Gospels (see reference I provided above).

Not adequate it seems., as you also want a explanation for the term Son of God. Ok. Here is the catholic encyclopedia article on “Son of God” newadvent.org/cathen/14142b.htm

The first line in it is “The title “son of God” is frequent in the Old Testament. The word “son” was employed among the Semites to signify not only filiation, but other close connexion or intimate relationship.” Now, from reading the rest of the section,you are correct that the term was not always equivilent to “the same as”; but that was certainly it at times, when looked in context. And the context which Mary was told? The second time was in explanation as to how she would conceive a child. The first time, the terminology was “Son of the Most High”. And beyond just the annointed one who would restore the kingdom of David, he was to reign forever.

Furthermore, in Mathew we have the angel telling Mary that “he shall be called Emmanuel” which means “God with us”.
Taken together, the teminology and phraseology was so strong, that it certainly would have told Mary that she was conceiving God incarnate.
Again, this is not from some Christian understanding of the terms, it is from the Jewish understanding. It is why the pharisses said “What further need have we of proof?” when Jesus responded that he was the Son of God.

In summary you have the family being told he was Emmanuel (God is with is); the Son of God (a close and intimate relationship beyond filiation); he would forgive sins (one God could do this); he would reign forever; he was Elizabeth’s referred to Jesus as “my Lord” (and) Zacariah said that John would prepare a path for “the Lord” (very much in line of the use of Lord throughout the Psalms, where the word Lord referred to God).

It is a modern day invention that Mary (and even Jesus) were so ignorant about it all. A plain reading of the Gospel accounts disputes that notion.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

…obvious that she knew Jesus was God incarnate.

Ok. Here is the catholic encyclopedia article on “Son of God” newadvent.org/cathen/14142b.htm

…now…you are correct that the term was not always equivilent to “the same as [God]”; but that was certainly it at times, when looked in context.

…Taken together, the teminology and phraseology was so strong, that it certainly would have told Mary that she was conceiving God incarnate.

Again, this is not from some Christian understanding of the terms, it is from the Jewish understanding.

It is a modern day invention that Mary (and even Jesus) were so ignorant about it all. A plain reading of the Gospel accounts disputes that notion.

Tafan
Your response reveals such a limited knowledge re critical Biblical scholarship/interpretation/exegesis and its principles that all I can do is make a variety of comments and leave you to do your own homework. This may be a forlorn hope given your self-confidence in an unsophisticated use of the “plain sense” approach to interpretting the Bible which effectively ignores the ground-breaking advances of sound Catholic Biblical scholarship and Judaean historical research/findings of the last 100 years or so. Anyhow I offer this just in case and other readers may wish to pursue the material I offer.

(1) The source you have quoted to justify your “plain sense” interpretation of NT passages and idioms (as if they explicitly expressed 21st century defined dogma) is the “New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia”. May I point out that this is actually the Old/Original Catholic Encyclopedia whose final edition was printed between 1907 and 1912. (Cf en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Encyclopedia). It therefore pre-dates the interpretative advances, methods and new data/research unearthed of Jesus’s times as alluded to above (which approach has been affirmed by various Popes).

May I suggest you go to your local Catholic Library and have a look through the 15 volume “New Catholic Encyclopedia” published 1967, with an updated 2nd edition in 2002 with ongoing supplements still coming out (Cf. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Catholic_Encyclopedia).

(2) Another source of solid middle of the road modern Catholic Biblical scholarship can be found in the famous “The New Jerome Biblical Commentary.” Apart from looking up the real meaning (for Jews before 30AD) of the NT phrases/idioms/ that you too quickly interpret as statements of modern Dogmatic Theology I recommend the following end of book articles: #70 (“Modern NT Criticism”); #71 (“Hermeneutics”); #72 (Church Pronouncements on Modern Catholic Scholarship);#78 (Jesus: Categories and Titles); #81 (Aspects of NT Thought: Christology).

(3) Traditional Catholics without formal theological education tend to rule out modern Catholic Biblical Scholarship carte blanche on the grounds of “Modernism” and go for the “plain sense” approach to the Bible because it appears to confirm that early Church Dogma can be read straight out of the NT. Very few serious and dedicated Churchmen who have given their lives to understanding the Bible hold this view any longer. It is not the end of the world. We are not Protestants.
If you are brave enough to seek alternative understandings, that still maintain the validity of Church Dogma, I recommend thoroughly Raymond E. Brown “Biblical Exegesis and Church Doctrine.” He also co-edited the New Jerome Biblical Commentary. I had the privilege in 1984 of sitting at his feet when he lectured on the topic we are now debating.
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was personally complimentary of Brown and his scholarship, and has been quoted as saying he “would be very happy if we had many exegetes like Father Brown” (Cf en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_E._Brown)

(4) “…determing what an ancient author meant is often no simple task…the plain sense …may become plain only after expanded effort. Stock market tables in the newspaper are lucidly clear but only to those who have taken the effort to learn to read them. Can one think a Bible millenia old is going to be easier than reading the newspaper? As Pius XII acknowledged in DAS (EB 35-36) “The literal sense of a passage is not always as obvious in speeches and writings of the ancient authors of the East as it is in the works of our own time.” Attempts to minimise or avoid the necessary steps involved will produce fundamentalist confusion.” (R. Brown, NJBC, #71:14)

(5) We have to understand that the Gospel writers were not writing a historical biography of Jesus. They were evangelising readers. They necessarily injected their own post-Resurrection faith and developed insights (from some 30-70 years later) into the Jesus incidents and characters and editing in a variety of sometimes obvious but mostly ambiguous ways. They were not eye witnesses themselves to much of this material. To then say that their characters (such as the Jew Mary) had the same level of Christian insight as the evangelist (or even used those exact same words the evangelist puts in her mouth) even as early as the time of Jesus’s birth is an unlikely assumption. Then there is the added complication that Mary spoke Aramaic not Greek which adds to the complexity of a “plain sense” approach.

(6) If we want to know what an average Jew understood by the many allegedly high Christological phrases you propound (which come from the Christian Greek Evangelist’s faith filled pen after the Resurrection) then surely we need to look outside of the NT to other Jewish literature to remove the faith bias not only of the Gospel writer but also of us Christian readers so readily desirous to see 21st century Incarnation Dogma there?

Here is a quote from the Jewish Encyclopedia re “Son of God”:
“It has been noted that the Gospel of John and the First Epistle of John have given the term a meta-physical and dogmatic significance. Undoubtedly the Alexandrian Logos concept has had a formative and dominant influence on the presentation of the doctrine of Jesus’ sonship…The Logos in Philo is designated as the “son of God”; the Logos is the first-born; God is the father of the Logos. In all probability these terms, while implying the distinct personality of the Logos, carry only a figurative meaning. The Torah also is said to be God’s “daughter” (Lev. R. xx.). At all events, the data of the Synoptic Gospels show that Jesus never styled himself the son of God in a sense other than that in which the righteous might call themselves “sons” or “children” of God.” (Cf jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/13912-son-of-god).”.”)

And if we look up your very high interpretations of such words as Immanuel, and “Son of the Most High” etc allegedly understood by Joseph before Jesus was born then we will be equally disapponted by the scholarly Jewish understanding of these phrases at that time.

To conclude then, Mary was a Jew not a Christian – at least before the Resurrection.
And what the NT says she said may be generally true but we must be careful not to identify her own mind too closely with particular words because … we are listening to the much later faith of the Evangelist as much as we are to the historical Mary.

As Evan wisely notes Mary no doubt pondered on these things in her heart and grew in insight and conviction over the years. By the end of her life (after the Resurrection) I would agree she had a higher understanding of her son’s status (at least as a pre-existent being close to God) but as homo-ousia (a much later developed dogmatic insight of the Church) … I don’t think so.

Re Jesus forgiving sins etc…remember his family thought he was mad near the end (probably because Jesus’s “high” teaching (or is it the Evangelist’s injected post-Resurrection ponderings as well) was just too much to understand (blasphemous) or integrate or stomach into their pious Jewish theology).

You may find the following interview with J.P. Meier (a highly respcted Catholic Biblical scholar and contributor to the NJBC) on modern Catholic Biblical scholarship helpful: americancatholic.org/Messenger/Dec1997/feature3.asp

 

[tafan]

Blue Horizon,

I have attempted to make my point that Mary knew that Jesus was the incarnation of God with specific arguments and references. That is the subject matter of this thread. I will therefore not respond to the 75% of your post which is a combinationof ad hominen attacks, critiques of my references while ignoring the content of what those references, and an attempt to educate me on modern biblical scholarship. If you would like to start a different thread on any of those subjects, feel free to do so.

As to your responses to my specific points:

1. Son of God. I admitted in my last post that this term in and of itself is not sufficient. And I thank you for the jewish encyclopedia reference. There isn’t much information to the page you referenced (BTW, your link did not work), but it is not significantly different than the section on the Old Testament useage from the 1913 Catholic encycopedia.
2. Immanuel: Again, thanks for the hint to look it up in the jewish encyclopediia. It appears there is not too much to be gleaned from the old testament usage of the term, but we still have the Gospel account telling us that it means “God is with us” and a Christian translation of Isaih which renders it that way. Beyond that it is hard to say.

3)Forgiveness of sins:
Blue Horizon:

Re Jesus forgiving sins etc…remember his family thought he was mad near the end (probably because Jesus’s “high” teaching (or is it the Evangelist’s injected post-Resurrection ponderings as well) was just too much to understand (blasphemous) or integrate or stomach into their pious Jewish theology).

A biblical reference for exactly where Jesus’s family thought he was mad would be beneficial to fully understand your point. But it seems you are saying that since Jesus’s family thought he was mad with regard to his claims to forgive sins, it stands to reason Joseph thought the angel was mad when the angel told him Jesus would save us from our sins?

1. You new point

And what the NT says she said may be generally true but we must be careful not to identify her own mind too closely with particular words because …we are listening to the much later faith of the Evangelist as much as we are to the historical Mary

First of all, most of my arguments have been based on what Mary, Joseph, or her cousins were told by angels; not based on whay she said. Secondly, could you please provide me with some more specific references as to what we may rely on that Mary said and thought as opposed to just the text of the Gospels?

Finally, I am not for sure why I am bothering with this, I need to go do my own homework and not expect responses directed specifically towards the points under discussion.

BTW, sitting at Mr Brown’s feet must have been such a thrilling experience. The thought of it makes quite an impression on me. The bravery it must have instilled in you; I could only hope for such fortitude while studying my faith.

 

[catholicanne]

 

[adrift]

This is a question that entered my mind because of how Mary and Jesus interacted at the Marriage at Cana.

Mary goes to Jesus with the problem of no wine. Jesus obviously understands Mary to be asking for a miracle. How would she have known other than her close association with Jesus. They must have talked a great deal in the 30 years of private life. What were those conversations like? I think that Mary was not totally aware since we have the finding in the temple. Her question to Jesus then was one of bewilderment imho. Even when the apostles were told that Jesus had to die they didn’t understand so because Mary was told does not mean that she understood. There is more evidence that she did than she didn’t.

 

[tafan]

This is a question that entered my mind because of how Mary and Jesus interacted at the Marriage at Cana.

Mary goes to Jesus with the problem of no wine. Jesus obviously understands Mary to be asking for a miracle. How would she have known other than her close association with Jesus. They must have talked a great deal in the 30 years of private life. What were those conversations like? I think that Mary was not totally aware since we have the finding in the temple. Her question to Jesus then was one of bewilderment imho. Even when the apostles were told that Jesus had to die they didn’t understand so because Mary was told does not mean that she understood. There is more evidence that she did than she didn’t.

The wedding at Cana is certainly evidence that Mary understood Jesus’s divinity. She was asking him to work a miracle, and in the Old Testament most of the miracles are performed by God directly and those that are not are performed under His direct instructions.

Now it seems likely that she did not have fore knowledge about His life, death and resurrection beyondwhat Jesus may have told her. And we have no knowledge of that.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Adrift
**Mary goes to Jesus with the problem of no wine. Jesus obviously understands Mary to be asking for a miracle. **
The problem with a “plain reading” of the New Testament is that a literal translation of the Greek of 2000 years ago, word by word, (which is the best that can be done) loses so much. Such a method of translating cannot simulate in us the same understanding that such a text would have elicited from a Greek Jew in the year 90-100AD (about the time this text was published). In other words a “plain reading” is rarely plain and we must have access to good commentaries that reflect latest research and scholarship if we want to start drawing further conclusions.

I am not saying your assumptions/conclusions cannot be right. I am saying that without consulting expert opinion wrt Jewish culture at the time, Greek translation etc we may draw conclusions that are highly unlikely insofar as they brutalise the real meaning of the text we are looking at.

It is an absolutely fundamental principle of good Bible interpretation/study that we must first understand what a Jewish/Greek reader at that time would have understood by the passage we are looking at. Such a “sitz im leben” (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sitz_im_Leben) understanding necessitates deep scholarship and research to obtain. Surely the least we non-expert Christians can do is our homework on such expert commentary if we truly want to respect/understand God’s Word in the Bible.

We Catholics especially far too easily brutalise the NT text with misinterpretted meanings because of our far better knowledge of the Catechism and official dogma than Scripture and Jewish custom.

There is no tragedy of faith in accepting that Church Dogma developed much later after the writing of the New Testament in response to specific heresies and questions that the New testament writers (let alone the persons potrayed) never faced or needed to comprehensively answer. I look to the Church to tell me what a NT passage has eventually come to mean for my belief but I look to Biblical research/exegesis to aid in determination of what a particular NT author meant or believed or understood by his own words when he wrote them. And what he has his “characters” allegedly saying may also be far in advance of what those characters were capable of appreciating in their even earlier time.

But back to tin tacks wrt the miracle at Cana:

• are we talking about wine or beer?
• if this was the first of Jesus’s miracles does this increase or decrease the liklihood of the assumption that it was obvious Mary was asking him for a miracle?
• if a wedding feast was held over 7 days would it be more likely that Mary was putting the screws on Jesus to take out his wallet (his new band of followers was also known to have a common purse used to give money to charity) and have someone go down to the local pub and get more supplies? 200 gallons of wine would have cost a fortune.
• did miracles prove personal human “divinity” at Jesus’s time.
• if so, how would, for example, the head steward have understood such “divinity” (e.g. close to God like Elija or Moses, like divine Caesar (who couldn’t work miracles), a specially chosen channel of God’s grace like the Messiah, a pre-existent god as in some exotic strains of greek philosophy (“logos”), a human with the same divine substance as God the father (a philosophic concept “invented”/hammered out 200 years later at Nicea)?

I am not trying to belittle your views, I am simply showing how easy it is to step into quicksand without respecting modern Biblical research and doing our homework.

I think that Mary was not totally aware since we have the finding in the temple. Her question to Jesus then was one of bewilderment imho. Even when the apostles were told that Jesus had to die they didn’t understand so because Mary was told does not mean that she understood. There is more evidence that she did than she didn’t.

Personally I agree totally with you here. Again and again in the NT we see much of Jesus’s words and actions met with complete bewilderment even amongst his closest and dearest. It took the resurrection and many years of reflection to mine the depths of his person and teaching.

 

[AthenaC]

Read the bible passages quoted above and you simply cannot come to that conclusion. She knew Jesus was the savior, she knew he was the Son of God, and she understood what that meant. It is very clear in the bible.

Please do not read into what I did not say. Was Mary not blindsided by the Presentation in the Temple? Did she know that they would have to flee to Egypt to save His life? Did she know that three strangers from Persia (or thereabouts) would show up unannounced with gifts for him? Did she know that she and Joseph would lose Jesus in Jerusalem for 3 days? Did she know that he would even have a public ministry? If so, did she know what it would entail? Did she know that he would be performing miracles? Did she know the types of things he would preach? Did she know that ultimately he would found a completely different Church than the Judaism he grew up in? Did she know that he would be executed as a common criminal? Did she know that he would rise again after 3 days? Did she know that he would ascend to Heaven after being crucified, dying, and being resurrected?

Of course not. To pretend otherwise is ludicrous. So when I say “She knew that Jesus was the Son of God but she didn’t know exactly what that would mean; she watched his life unfold like any mother would,” I think that’s a perfectly reasonable opinion. God tends to share info only on a need-to-know basis, for whatever reason.

 

[tafan]

AthenaC, I apologize, I did read too much into your post the other day. We are saying much the same thing.

 

[AthenaC]

AthenaC, I apologize, I did read too much into your post the other day. We are saying much the same thing.

No need. Things can get misinterpreted online.

 

[tafan]

I have done a little more research on this topic, and have come across the following paragraph in John Paul II’s encyclical Redemptoris Mater:

1. Mary’s faith can also be compared to that of Abraham, whom St. Paul calls “our father in faith” (cf. Rom. 4:12). In the salvific economy of God’s revelation, Abraham’s faith constitutes the beginning of the Old Covenant; Mary’s faith at the Annunciation inaugurates the New Covenant. Just as Abraham “in hope believed against hope, that he should become the father of many nations” (cf. Rom. 4:18), so Mary, at the Annunciation, having professed her virginity (“How shall this be, since I have no husband?”) **believed **that through the power of the Most High, by the power of the Holy Spirit, she would become the Mother of God’s Son in accordance with the angel’s revelation: “The child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God” (Lk. 1:35).

Now, since we know who John Paul II was writing to (ie. us), and our understanding of the term Son of God, it is clear that JP II taught that Mary knew that Jesus was God incarnate at the time of the annunciation.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

…your post…is a combinationof ad hominen attacks…

My apologies if you read my response this way as that was not intended. It is my experience that when strongly held views get equally strongly challenged it can seem like a personal attack and perhaps that is the case here.

I will not respond re your “questions” raised above as the negative tone is suggestive of neither an open heart nor an open mind consequent to your emotion. In any case, if you are willing to follow up on the leads I have given you above the answers to your questions will become readily apparant.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I have done a little more research on this topic, and have come across the following paragraph in John Paul II’s encyclical Redemptoris Mater:

*Mary, at the Annunciation, having professed her virginity (“How shall this be, since I have no husband?”) believed that through the power of the Most High, by the power of the Holy Spirit, she would become the Mother of God’s Son in accordance with the angel’s revelation: “The child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God” (Lk. 1:35). *

Now, since we know who John Paul II was writing to (ie. us), and our understanding of the term Son of God, it is clear that JP II taught that Mary knew that Jesus was God incarnate at the time of the annunciation.

Tafan
Just as we have to be careful not to brutalise the NT text and context when interpreting it -so too with Encyclicals.

 

[jmcrae]

Tafan
Just as we have to be careful not to brutalise the NT text and context when interpreting it - so too with Encyclicals.

The plain sense is plain enough. We don’t need modern “scholars” and their fancy imaginations to reinterpret it into something that science would be able to explain, as if science were the highest good, rather than faith.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

The plain sense is plain enough. We don’t need modern “scholars” and their fancy imaginations to reinterpret it into something that science would be able to explain, as if science were the highest good, rather than faith.

jmcrae
If we research and reflect on the enormous task/contribution from modern Catholic scholars, researchers and intellectuals that made it possible for the NJB or NRSV translation Bibles to end up sitting on our bedside table…we would be very humbled and grateful for their long and dedicated service.

Without them you would not have a Catholic Bible worthy of the name. You would be left to read Greek - and as there is no single original but a lot of copies dating from 100s of years later (that of course don’t always match) you would have quite a dilemma as to which was the “true” one. And of course the meaning of Greek text changes over time so you need Greek scholars, au fait with the latest archeological research and findings of ancient extra Biblical texts, to truly understand what those Greek words really meant at the time of the Evangelists. This is just the tip of the complexities involved … just so we can read our bedside Bible.

These same types of scholars provide extensive commentaries because the Bible text alone is not enough to replicate the depth of instruction that twould have been plainly understood by the Evangelist’s target audience at that time.

As past Popes have stated, the “plain text” only becomes plain when one does one’s homework. That requires an expertise impossible to the lay reader unaided. We must do our homework using the latest acceptably Catholic expertise available to us.

Anything less is surely disrepectful to God’s Word and leads to a pious Luddite-ism - acceptable enough if its in accord with the Catechism and we keep our interpretations to ourselves.

 

[jmcrae]

jmcrae
If we research and reflect on the enormous task/contribution from modern Catholic scholars, researchers and intellectuals that made it possible for the NJB or NRSV translation Bibles to end up sitting on our bedside table…we would be very humbled and grateful for their long and dedicated service.

Without them you would not have a Catholic Bible worthy of the name. You would be left to read Greek - and as there is no single original but a lot of copies dating from 100s of years later (that of course don’t always match) you would have quite a dilemma as to which was the “true” one. And of course the meaning of Greek text changes over time so you need Greek scholars, au fait with the latest archeological research and findings of ancient extra Biblical texts, to truly understand what those Greek words really meant at the time of the Evangelists. This is just the tip of the complexities involved … just so we can read our bedside Bible.

These same types of scholars provide extensive commentaries because the Bible text alone is not enough to replicate the depth of instruction that twould have been plainly understood by the Evangelist’s target audience at that time.

As past Popes have stated, the “plain text” only becomes plain when one does one’s homework. That requires an expertise impossible to the lay reader unaided. We must do our homework using the latest acceptably Catholic expertise available to us.

Anything less is surely disrepectful to God’s Word and leads to a pious Luddite-ism - acceptable enough if its in accord with the Catechism and we keep our interpretations to ourselves.

I have great respect for the ancient scholars, and for scholars who have faith in God, but there are many modern scholars who deny the plain sense of the Scriptures in favour of “what makes sense:” in their own minds, so as to deny the Creation, the virginal conception of Christ (the modern hypothesis is that she was raped by a Roman soldier and lied to hide the fact) Resurrection, and pretty much all the power of God, in order to make it sensible to “scientific man.”

As to the original question - did Mary know that her child was destined for the rising and the falling of many? Did she know that he was David’s heir, and the Messiah that had been prophesied? Yes, she did. She didn’t know the details of how everything would unfold, but she wasn’t an idiot, and she wouldn’t have agreed to become pregnant by the Holy Ghost unless she thought that the child she would bear had power greater than that of the world, since the sentence was surely death for her, to be found pregnant out of wedlock. She would not have risked death for anything less that God Himself.

 

[tafan]

My apologies if you read my response this way as that was not intended. It is my experience that when strongly held views get equally strongly challenged it can seem like a personal attack and perhaps that is the case here.

I will not respond re your “questions” raised above as the negative tone is suggestive of neither an open heart nor an open mind consequent to your emotion. In any case, if you are willing to follow up on the leads I have given you above the answers to your questions will become readily apparant.

Lady, you are a piece of work. Not intended to be a personal attack? I have too limited knoweldge in biblical scholarship and am overly self-confident in an unsophisticated use of scripture, am not brave enough to seek alternative understanding, and I brutalize NT passages and encyclicals. As such, you have made it clear I am not even worth your time to tell us what you think about the topic of the thread. Why keep responding then?

You point me to followup on leads you have given, I have looked at all of them. I have so far found one reference to that you have provided that is relative to the subject matter of this thread. I have already commented that it was not out of line with one of the references I provided (and you ignored).

Besides that, you have pointed me to generic information of your idol, Fr. Raymand Brown, and other generic information on historical analysis of scripture.
Well, you complain about my “tone”: although I have provided several arguments and references pertaining to what Mary did and did not know. We still do not know exactly what you think on the subject of this thread and we do not know what Raymand Brown thought on this subject.

As I said before, if you want a thread about modern Biblical scholarship, Fr Brown, or about my shortcomings, start a thread(s) to discuss those matters. This thread has a very specific topic; please help us with the topic at hand.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

… there are many modern scholars who deny the plain sense of the Scriptures in favour of “what makes sense:” in their own minds, so as to deny the Creation, the virginal conception of Christ (the modern hypothesis is that she was raped by a Roman soldier and lied to hide the fact) Resurrection, and pretty much all the power of God, in order to make it sensible to “scientific man.”

jmcrae
Yes you are right if it is understood that this has been a weakness in some sectors of Modern Protestant Biblical studies who do not have the other great source of divine truth that we look to - the Magisterium.

You may know that it was Protestantism that first attempted to bring the new scientific disciplines of textual/historic “criticism” of the 17th and 18th centuries to bear on the Sacred Texts. Catholic Church authorities at that time (and up until the very early 1900s)reacted in horror to some of the more outlandish conclusions. This tainted the nascent and developing scientific methods they used as well.

However during the course of the 20th century increasing numbers of very loyal and competent Catholic scholars arose - even attaining such prestige in this scientific field that they gained credence even when attacking Protestant “scholars” for lack of scholarship on some of the sorts of anti-dogmatic statements you mention above.

More importantly Church authorities no longer fear this “new” field of Biblical “historical criticism” and in fact supports such scholarship. Church Dogma really has nothing to fear from its findings. Why should it? If Church dogma is correct how can true scientific scholarship/study of the New Testament and its times find anything to absolutely contradict Church Dogma? This does not mean the New Testament will clearly affirm all Church Dogma - let alone at the time of Jesus. This is the hard part that us traditionalists often find hard to accept.

You have raised the specific question of the virginal conception of Jesus and whether modern Catholic scholarship and historical criticism would identify this truth as clearly taught in the Gospels and held as such by the Evangelists and their church communities at that time?

If you really wish to do your homework on this do try reading R. Brown’s book of 1985 that I mentioned above - he tackles/summarises the “landscape” wrt your virginal conception concern directly. He maintains that on the grounds of true Biblical scholarship/“science” alone that the dogma cannot be denied and is taught in the text as a historical fact.