June 25, 2004
Mary's Gospel: The Marian Influence on the Gospel of Luke
We have often discussed on this blog the role of Mary in the Early Church. Many have insisted that her role was minimal and insignificant. Yet we cannot deny the vividly strong presence of the Blessed Virgin Mary in the Gospel of St. Luke.
Most certainly there is proof of St. Matthew having some contact with Mary in the events that he depicts in the first two chapters of his Gospel, yet St. Luke's Gospel is unique in the extensive detail provided in his first two chapters. It is St. Luke that writes about Mary's dialogue with the angel Gabriel. It is St. Luke that writes about Mary's visit to Elizabeth. It is St. Luke that records word for word Mary's famous proclamation, the Magnificat. It is St. Luke who tells us of the presentation in the Temple and the prophecies of Simeon and Anna. It is St. Luke who details the events surrounding the finding of Jesus in the Temple.
Two things must stand out to us when considering these things; (1) ultimately, either St. Luke or someone helping him, sought Mary's interpretation of the events of Jesus' early life, and (2) St. Luke, inspired by Almighty God, felt it was absolutely necessary to include it in his Gospel.
The Navarre Bible Commentary has this to say on the matter:
The third Gospel throws special light on the Mother of Christ, a light which gently reveals the greatness and beauty of her soul. This is probably why St. Luke was regarded as having actually painted our Lady in the proper sense of the word. Be that as it may, his Gospel is a basic source for doctrine of our Lady and also for devotion to the Mother of our Redeemer - and also it has inspired much Christian art in which Mary figures. With the logical exception of Jesus, no other protagonist in the Gospel story has been described with such love and admiration as Mary.
Nor has any other human creature received such sublime and singular graces as she: she is "full of grace" (kecharitomene) (Lk 1:28); the Lord is with her (Lk 1:28), she has found favour with God (Lk 1:30); she conceived by the work of the Holy Spirit (Lk 1:35); she is the Mother of Jesus (Lk 2:7), yet she is a Virgin (Lk 1:34); intimately involved in the redemptive mystery of the Cross (Lk 2:35), she will be blessed by all generations, for the Almighty has done great things for her (Lk 1:49). With good reason does a woman in the crowd cry out in praise of Jesus' Mother (Lk 11:27).
Our Lady responds to these gifts in a most faithful and generous way: St. Elizabeth calls her blessed because she has believed (Lk 1:45); the Virgin receives with humility the archangel's announcement that she is to become the Mother of God (Lk 1:29); she asks, in all simplicity, what she has to do to obey God's will (Lk 1:34); she surrenders herself completely to God's plans (Lk 1:38; 2:50); she hastens to help others (Lk 1:39,56); she is full of gratitude for the gifts she has received (Lk 1:46-55); she faithfully observes God's laws (Lk 2:24) and the pious customs of her people (Lk 2:41); she is very distressed when the Child is lost and makes tender complaint to him (Lk 1:48), but she meekly accepts what she does not understand (Lk 2:48-50). She has a contemplative sense of wonder towards divine mysteries, which she keeps and ponders in her heart (Lk 2:19, 51). As Paul VI said, Mary "is not only the sublime 'type' of the creature redeemed by Christ's merits, she is also the 'type' of all mankind as it makes its pilgrim way in faith." (General Audience, 30 May 1973) - The Navarre Bible: St. Luke, texts and commentaries; pgs. 24-25
So as we ponder the presence of Mary in this Gospel we realize the significance of her role. She provided the Church with knowledge of the details of the Lord's coming into the world and of His early years.
Another interesting thing that should be noted is that the genealogy provided by St. Luke has been considered by some biblical scholars to be the genealogy of Mary. St. Matthew provides a different genealogy in his Gospel, tying Jesus to the line of the king, whereas St. Luke's genealogy ties Jesus to the line of the priest. One factor in determining this is the fact that we know that Mary's family is tied to the priesthood of the Jewish people through Zechariah. It would also explain the reality of Mary's consecrated life to virginity.
Regardless of what one's beliefs are about Mary it cannot be denied that her influence on St. Luke's Gospel is both clearly visible and significant.
In Christ,
Joe
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
I find it interesting that there has been an assumption throughout the period of Christianity, that the words entitled the Magnificat was composed by Mary.
In fact, it was in existence long before she arrived on the scene. Care to check out 1 Samuel? These words were based on the prayer of Hannah.
If the Synopticxs reflect truth at all, then one must be astounded that a 15 year old Jewish girl in the last few years of the period BC, would have chosen Samuel and drawn on it to write her own hymn of praise.
There are no absolute proofs of about 85% of what is contained in the Bible. Much of it is derived or based on mythology.
That is not to say that myths do not have a place in the annals of a people. Nor to diminish the fact that people writing a few thousand years ago - even some hundreds of years ago, mistake belief for truth.
We can never know the reality. All we have is what a few men came to believe, and that after much dissent, bitterness and alienation because one set of beliefs did not concur or meet with the approval of another in the many and varied sects that went to make up early Christianity.
One school eventually triumphed because it received the sanction not of God, but of Constantine, one of the most consummate political animals that has ever graced the human stage.
And being proclaimed the majority, monopoly religion immediately conferred the kind of power we today associoate with totalitarian systems.
The Magnificant is indeed sublime in many ways. I just do not accept that Mary composed it, nor that St Luke did either. It was a compilation and conflation of existing Hebraic texts from long, long ago in Jewish history.
Of course, the Christians usurped much of Judaism and then demonised it while they took over the Jewish God.
Very little to congratulate onself about, since the demonisation of the Jewish people has continued apace since those times.
Only one Holy Father has ever bothered to apologise.
I find it pretty sickening and wholly hypocritical of the Catholic Faith as a religion that it is ever mindful of the sins of even its own followers, while completely disregarding its own.
At least your exposition lacks the vehemence and the offensive nature that many still retain.
As you will have deduced from this, it is something about which I hold very strong feelings and I too am a gentile.
I have met more persecuted Jews in my life, however, than I have of persecuted Christians. Undoubtedly this must have some effect on the way I now feel about Christianity as an organisation. I also write as one who was imbued with and awash in Christianity in my earlier years.
I see spirituality as quite unallied to religion. It is not necessary to subscribe to any religion in order to apprehend the numinous.
Oh Roslyn,
Please do a little history before reciting stuff like this. First, of course Mary was reciting Samuel; the Jews of her day knew the Bible inside and out and often cited it. Mary was expressing more by using Hannah's prayer. In modern days we recite the Lords Prayer as well as Mary's prayer - your argument does not follow.
Second, there's more evidence that the Bible is what it says it is than for any other manuscript from that age. There are huge amounts of corresponding proofs from other literature and history books around the same time. I'm not sure what exactly you want for "proof," but there is tons of evidence that historians rely on for proof. "85%" must be a number you just made up - most skeptics are intelligent enough not to throw out something that erroneous.
It sounds basically like you just read the DaVinci Code or some other nonsense. I recommend that you read something actually written by a historian - pick an atheist or secular one if you would like. If you actually read history, you'll change your views.
Spirituality without religion is not real, like a beach without water. I hope that you study into some of the false information you seem to have received.
God bless,
Jay
