So let's talk about today's readings 7/21/09

[cheeto1]

usccb.org/nab/072109.shtml

“Israel saw the Egyptians lying dead on the seashore”

I wonder how many people there were? At the sight of this horror, the Israelites
sang and danced. I know they were happy, because those people would have
killed them all or brought them back to be slaves. Probably a little of both. But
it seems to go a little against the spirit of humanity to sing and dance by dead
people, no matter who they are. After they were done, they left. I wonder how
long all the bodies just stayed there? How about the bodies of the horses? What
types of items were floating around with the chariots? Did anyone ever hear about
it in that time and just go there and look around? Or did the Egyptians go there
to bury their dead?

How did that song go, and the one Miriam sang too? A tambourine is the only
instrument, and what might the tune have sounded like?

“whoever does the will of my heavenly Father
is my brother, and sister, and mother.”
– He is telling everybody that their true family is everyone who does the will of God.
Yet, is He implying that his relatives and even His mother are not doing the
will of God? And why doesn’t He say whoever does the will of My Father is
my cousin and mother, since He didn’t have brothers and sisters. They had a
word for cousin back then, it was used on Elizabeth. Why doesn’t Jesus use
it on His cousins?

So what struck you about today’s readings? :bible1::twocents:

 

[cheeto1]

Today is the day of Lawrence of Brindisi.

The opening prayer of his mass struck me today. It says:
“…help us to know what we should do and give us the courage to do it…”

It seems to imply that if we knew what we should do, we would be afraid
to do it…

 

[Huiou_Theou]

The word for cousin, συνγενις, syngenis, is not a popular word for Hebrews to use. In many instances it is practically an insult – more likely to be used of family relations between foreigners than close relatives.

From studying its usage – It means to “be with” or “together beside”. It can be used of cousins, but that is not its primary meaning. It is more likely to be used of distant grandchildren or grandparents in Jewish usage. When it is used of blood relatives (cousins), it usually indicates something is wrong with them or the relationship – eg: the part of the family we don’t know well because of problem X. eg: One way it is used is to reference the tribe/clan as a whole, making clear that it includes those who are the problem children (practically disowned).

In that passage in Luke, notice two things:
Elisabeth had a reproach – her barren-ness – so the use of the word could be applied for that reason; to call attention to the accursed nature that would be supposed of Elisabeth in ignorance.

in Luke 1:61 it is used of the name John, for the reason that the name was not of a “good” relative; one who is well known. Thus his naming immediately reflects the nature of his mother’s sudden reversal of fortune – the unkown becomes blessed.

A second reason that it may be used is that Elisabeth and Zechariah are pureblood Aaronites. That is, they are from a different clan than Judah; and one which being priestly had the strictest marriage laws. So, the relationship between Mary and them as cousins is somewhat dubious as blood cousins closer than the patriarch’s time; it is perhaps a covenental relationship – for this family lives in the hills of Judah which is not their tribe and inheritence. So, they ranked as the clan of Judah – for they are with them in their territory.

The name Miram (Mary) hearks back to Moses’ sister. I don’t know if the naming convention was applied primarily to the first-born – but if it is unerversal to choose a name of a grandparent; that would suggest intermarriage between Levi and Judah at some distant time in the past – but which separated the tribe they officially belonged to. It seems more likely, as John was named out of the normal order – that Mary is named after Miram because she was a national hero – the one who saved Moses, etc. She was the channel through which Moses came to the world – and is highly appropriate for the mother of the Messiah.

There is also the Proto-evangelum of James – which holds the tradition that Mary was a temple virgin; In that case, she may have been dedicated to the temple – and given to a priest on duty; If it were Zechariah – then Mary would be his covanental child (adopted charge). In that case they need not be blood cousins of any close degree at all.

Also, there are two other interesting aspects of what happens here – Mary sees her cousin when she is first pregnant; that is, before there would be any suspicions raised about her own pregnancy – which would be scandal for a priest to be related to – and so she could have disclosed her pregnant state and the miraculous nature to a set of receptive ears which would be able to reduce the public scandal and risk of stoning. Her virginity would be visibly intact to Elisabeth – and her prediction of pregnancy, then, would not be as easily attributable to bad causes.
Eg: an Alibi.

Hope this helped.
–Andrew.

 

[cheeto1]

Sir, this is valuable information. Of course it helps, thank you!!