What if Elizabeth and not Mary sang the Magnificat? --- textual variant

  • Thread starter Thread starter Big_Dummy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Big_Dummy

Guest
Ok there appears to be some textual variants that Elizabeth and not Mary sang the Magnificat. What implications would this have for mariology? I can see the text being changed from Elizabeth to Mary for the purpose of gloriflying Mary, but I can’t see why the text would be changed from Mary to Elizabeth. No well known copyist errors explains this. What do you all see?
Pro Elizabeth:
  1. “Low estate” in 48a better fits barren Elizabeth, and matches her “disgrace among men in 1:25
  2. “Has done great things for me” in 49a matches “the Lord has shown great mercy” to Elizabeth in 1:58
  3. It is awkward to mention Mary in v. 46 then rename her in v. 56.
  4. Elizabeth better fits the model for the Magnificat, Hannah in 1 Sam, for both women were barren before God gave them children.
  5. Very difficult to imagine scribes substituting Elizabeth for Mary, for high respect for Mary appeared in Christianity quite early on.
Click to expand...
The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke (The Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library) [Paperback]
Raymond E. Brown (Author)
The Ascription of The Magnificat to Mary (Benko)
Click to expand...
A review of the history of the controversy
Click to expand...
The emergence of the problem can be traced back as far as 1881 when Westcott and Hort, The NT in the Original Greek, vol. 2, first listed three Old Latin variants to Lk 1:46 which read “et ait Elisabeth” instead of “Maria.” On this basis A. Loisy in 1893 proposed that the Magnificat originally may have been attributed to Elizabeth. The great debate, however, began when G. Morin discovered and published a sermon of Niceta in 1897, in which the Magnificat is attributed to Elizabeth at two occasions. In the same year Loisy, under the pseudonym of Francois Jacobe thoroughly investigated the whole problem and came to the conclusion that the variants favoring the “Elizabeth” merit the attention of competent theologians. The well known article of Adolf Harnack (Sitsungsber. Akad.Berlin, 1900) proposed that the original text contained only “and she said,” which was later expanded by “Elizabeth”(correctly) or by “Mary” (incorrectly). Yet Harnack introduced little new material and most of his arguments were taken over from Loisy. In 1901, Otto Bardenhewer, representing Roman Catholic scholarship, answered Loisy and Harnack; as far as Roman Catholic scholarship was concerned, the matter was decided by a ruling of the “Commissio de re biblica” in 1912, forbidding the attribution of the Magnificat to Elizabeth. Protestants continued the debate which gained new momentum by the publication of Niceta’s sermon in England. Many scholars found the evidence in favor of the “Elizabeth” variant convincing, with the most notable exception being T.Zahn. [Note: A 34 item bibliography listing most works dealing with the controversy was distributed to those present at the Seminar. Copies are still available upon request].
Click to expand...
A Summary of the Arguments.
Click to expand...
Arguments on both sides may be classified in two groups: external and internal. (1) Mary as the ‘singer.” External evidence: All Greek MSS, most patristic witnesses, tradition up to the end of the last century. Internal evidence: Here the arguments consist mostly in refutation of the arguments mentioned in support of the “Elisabeth” variant. (2) Elizabeth as the ‘singer.” External evidence: Three minor Old Latin MSS, perhaps Origen, Niceta. Jerome also knew about this variant. Internal evidence: The general structure of the infancy narratives, especially the parallel between Elizabeth and Zechariah, points to Elizabeth. So do comparisons with OT parallels such as Hannah (1 Sam 1:11) and Leah (Gen 29f). The style of the narrative indicates no change of speaker in Lk 1:46, and Lk 1:56 makes good sense only if previously Elizabeth had been speaking. In addition there are a number of negative arguments which emphasize that Mary could not have been meant as the ‘singer.” Among these it is mentioned that Mary is treated very discreetly in the infancy narratives and such a long hymn would not be ascribed to her; moreover in the rest of the gospel according to Luke she almost completely disappears… A review of the arguments show that the external evidence favors overwhelmingly the traditional reading “Mary,” but the internal evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the “Elizabeth” variant.
Click to expand...
ccat.sas.upenn.edu/psco/archives/psco03-min.htm
campus.udayton.edu/mary/LearningSpace/bubyem.htm
biblewiki.be/wiki/Magnificat_(Catholic_Encyclopedia
ewtn.com/library/montfort/Handbook/Magnifi.htm
religion.emory.edu/faculty/robbins/Pdfs/Magnificat.pdf
cybrwurm.tripod.com/meb/vv13.htm
jstor.org/pss/3263007
forum.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=393790

A Possible Solution in the light of Modern Research.
debatingchristianity.com/forum/pda/thread.php?topic_id=4954

Now, if you are going to say it is impossible that Elizabeth sang the magnificat, how do you explain the text being changed from Mary to Elizabeth in the variants? Based on the above, I would say the orignial likely simply said “she”, not giving a name and that as glorification of Mary became more popular Mary’s name was inserted in place of Elizabeth or she.
 
We studied Hannah and her time period in detail in my women’s Bible study, and the context of the times and events within Salvation History.

We have known for some time that Mary was simply repeating the prayer of Hannah, yet Mary because of the brilliance of her soul greatly reduced the images and conditions, and brought to attention the fruition of her “yes”, Christ Jesus.

For Mary the whole center point of her Magnificat was centering her life on the will of God and then seeing how with her obedience she is the means Christ the Savior and Redeemer of the world will come.

So we do indeed owe her some honor and recognition for her yes. Without her we would not have Christ…
 
CCC2617
Mary’s prayer is revealed to us at the dawning of the fullness of time. Before the incarnation of the Son of God, and before the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, her prayer cooperates in a unique way with the Father’s plan of loving kindness: at the Annunciation, for Christ’s conception; at Pentecost, for the formation of the Church, his Body.88 In the faith of his humble handmaid, the Gift of God found the acceptance he had awaited from the beginning of time. She whom the Almighty made “full of grace” responds by offering her whole being: “Behold I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be [done] to me according to your word.” “Fiat”: this is Christian prayer: to be wholly God’s, because he is wholly ours.

2618
The Gospel reveals to us how Mary prays and intercedes in faith. At Cana,89 the mother of Jesus asks her son for the needs of a wedding feast; this is the sign of another feast—that of the wedding of the Lamb where he gives his body and blood at the request of the Church, his Bride. It is at the hour of the New Covenant, at the foot of the cross,90 that Mary is heard as the Woman, the new Eve, the true “Mother of all the living.”

2619
That is why the Canticle of Mary,91 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.”]

…seems safe to me to disregard other interpretations.
It is our Mother’s true humility that ‘sings out’.
 
And yes, both women are blessed…both are the first evangelizers of the Good News…

And again, this duo represent that Catholcism is indeed fulfilled Judaism because our faith does not revolve around one person…ours is God revealing Himself to a gathering of people.

It took many people many years to discern which books would edify the Church as public revelation and which books designated as private revelation, although inspired, and which books were not inspired. Because God came to reveal salvation for all people, not a select few.
 
Big Dummy
What if Elizabeth and not Mary sang the Magnificat? — textual variant
The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke (The Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library) [Paperback]
Raymond E. Brown (Author)

The Ascription of The Magnificat to Mary (Benko)

A review of the history of** the controversy**

The emergence of the problem can be traced back as far as 1881
​
Click to expand...

​
The author Father Brown (may he RIP) is no authority on this…it is a a controversy that did no exist for @ 1881 years…no Church Fathers cite Elizabeth as the person who sang the Magnificat…and no Pope, Magisterial pronouncement that contradicts/questions the sustained translations of Mary as the singer.

In summary…as the saying goes…“this dog won’t hunt”…its a lot of titillating and maybe sincere…yet fanciful speculation…but belongs in the dust bin of the history of the Enlightenment!

Pax Christi

I have a few of Father Brown’s books/booklets…always very academically professional and astute in his breath and depth…knowledge of the bible/history…and he is also deceptively and calmly persuasive…but quite often a “few bricks short” of the full story/truth…just my opinion.
 
Thanks, very interesting…

This is where we then fall into the small ‘t’ tradition…but I tend to believe Mary did say, ‘all generations will call me blessed’…
 
So, how do you all explain the existence of the Elizabeth variants?
 
granted, but there is three or four different manuscripts with the Elizabeth variant.

Exactly, how would you explain their mistake logically speaking. None of the well know “mistakes” in copying that I know of fits.
 
Big_Dummy said:
granted, but there is three or four different manuscripts with the Elizabeth variant.

Exactly, how would you explain their mistake logically speaking. None of the well know “mistakes” in copying that I know of fits.
Click to expand...
There are all kinds of manuscripts, variations and “gospels” that say all kinds of things. The Holy Scriptures were compiled within the tradition the Church, by the Church and for the Church. That Tradition says that Mary said the magnificat. That’s really all we need to know.

In Christ
Joe
 
And, how do you explain the existence of the varients textually speaking?
 
We depend on the tradition of the Holy Spirit. If it was indeed taken out of context…the Holy Spirit would have moved and it would have been corrected.
 
KathleenGee said:
We depend on the tradition of the Holy Spirit. If it was indeed taken out of context…the Holy Spirit would have moved and it would have been corrected.
Click to expand...
Which it did - and for 2,000 years tradition and teaching has been rock-solid that it was MARY who said the Magnificat, and not Elizabeth.

Do you know there was a bible published back in the early days of printing that actually removed the word ‘not’ from one of the Ten Commandments? The fact that it is commonly referred to as the ‘adulterer’s bible’ should give you a clue that it mistakenly said ‘thou SHALT committ adultery’ rather than ‘thou shalt not’.

Such mistakes are incredibly easy to make, and any mistake made once can be repeated at least a few times by inexperienced or not-perfectly-literate copyists (and such exist, especially when the text one is copying is not one’s own vernacular language, which is frequently the case with Scripture), regardless of whether one is writing or printing.

Ever played ‘chinese whispers’, the game where a group of people sit in a circle? One person whispers something to thier neighbour, who then is supposed to repeat it exactly to their next neighbour, who then repeats it to theirs and so on? Very quickly the message gets distorted, because people don’t hear perfectly, and what the last person in the circle hears is never what the first person actually said, usually something very different.

Point is errors can surely creep into, and be repeated in, even hand-copied texts if they can creep into and be repeated in speech in the game of Chinese Whispers.
 
Telephone, see there you go already changing the name of the game…lol
 
Yes, Lily the whisper game, or Gary the telephone game…used that on the Mormon apostasy post…

What is remarkable is that in 150 AD St. Justin the Martyr followed the request of the Emperor of Rome, and described the Mass to him in how it was said in Rome, in the Roman countryside, and in the Christian world…in spite of all the races, languages, cultures and customs!

The faith we carry is the Holy Spirit. I know I have had my own private experiences…and something will always stand out and doesn’t seem right…check out the theology, however so subtle…and yes, that was the Holy Spirit prompting me to see that I was musing on an error.

The Holy Spirit would have let the apostles and their successors know right away it was Elizabeth and not Mary who recited that prayer…but the part…‘all generations shall call me blessed…’ sounds like Mary…and I would think she would be in the position to proclaim such a blessing rather than Elizabeth for the simple fact she was carrying the Savior and Messiah of the world…wouldn’t you???
 
Elizabeth’s attitude was one of total humility - ‘who am I that the mother of my Lord should come to me?’ and she called MARY ‘blessed among women’ first out of all the generations to follow.

I don’t think that attitude jibes with Elizabeth calling attention to herself in any way - saying that all generations would call her, rather than Mary, blessed, for example.
 
Lily…

Good point in noting Elizabeth’s remarks…This is just another example of why I can never leave the Catholic Church. Everything was done a long time ago, and the intent was to preserve the true Christ and His Gospel through the witness of the Apostles.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top