Did Mary Know?

[tafan]

Originally Posted by Evan

You make a good argument.

However (you knew that was coming), I find it works better in hindsight. After Mary knew Jesus was God (maybe at some time in his public ministry) she may have understood those earlier references as Godly titles.
Son of the Most High... could be anyone. We are all sons of God
Mother of her Lord... could be confusing, Lord could just refer to the heir to the Davidic throne
Don't know if Zach told Mary of this, how he phrased it, etc
Forgive sins? Could be he would be a conduit of God's grace (like a Jewish priest) that brings the forgiveness of sins rather than forgiving in his own name.

So, I still hold to the idea that Mary held these things in her heart and reflected on what they could mean, RATHER than knowing what they meant from day 1.

Your "however", is spoken from an apparent ignorance of Jewish religion and tradition at the time of Christ.. Read the Gospels, the following become very apparent:

The jews certainly equated both the title "Son of God" and the ability to forgive sins with God. Especially the second, they believed that only God could forgive sins. Jewish priests had no authority to forgive sins. They never assumed to speak for God on that matter. When Jesus told people their sins were forgiven, the Jewish leaders were scandalized. They knew exactly what that meant.

Mary knew that Jesus was God incarnate.

[Blue Horizon]

Originally Posted by tafan

Your "however", is spoken from an apparent ignorance of Jewish religion and tradition at the time of Christ.. Read the Gospels, the following become very apparent:

The jews certainly equated both the title "Son of God" and the ability to forgive sins with God. Especially the second, they believed that only God could forgive sins. Jewish priests had no authority to forgive sins. They never assumed to speak for God on that matter. When Jesus told people their sins were forgiven, the Jewish leaders were scandalized. They knew exactly what that meant.

Mary knew that Jesus was God incarnate.

Tafan
I believe Evan's view is correct.

Can you provide a quote/source for your contrary knowledge regarding Jewish religion and tradition at the time of Christ?

Yes, Jesus's closest followers witnessed Jesus forgiving sins (I am not sure Mary did) and many other examples of "high" Christological behaviour ... yet still could not make the leap to Jesus's hypostatic union and divinity. That would demand acceptance of polytheism and a God who is not pure spirit - both anathema to devoutl Jews. No wonder the disciples were extremely bewildered despite the Transfiguration.

We have to be very careful not to read back our own high Christological concepts back into Gospel words or phrases that could not possibly have meant the same thing (or even be understood) to Jesus's followers at that time in history. Many Biblical scholars would hold that it took the Resurrection to provide even the possibility of them holding the "divine concepts", that we take for granted today. (Without the Resurrection all such divine titles for Jesus would smack of polytheism and be impossible for a devout Jew).

As others have noted the title "Saviour" seems to be an early Christian title (i.e. post Resurrection.) and not a popular pre-Resurrection one ( if it was one it does not by itself seem to suggest divinity).

I think the word you may be looking for is Messiah.
If so, then yes I would say Mary would have believed Jesus was God's Messiah - but that still did not imply divinity. That belief would have been sorely tested at his crucifixion - and would have been elevated to include divinity with the Resurrection.

[Ignatius]

Originally Posted by Ignatius

Didn't the Angel Gabriel tell her exactly that?

Yes, the Angel Gabriel told her.

[tafan]

Originally Posted by Blue Horizon

Tafan
I believe Evan's view is correct.

Can you provide a quote/source for your contrary knowledge regarding Jewish religion and tradition at the time of Christ?
.

Well, that is simple, try Mark chapter 2, verse 7. Only God can forgive sins, that was the Jewish view, it is clear from reading the new testament.

When the angel said Jesus would deliver all men from their sins, he said that Jesus was God.

We have to be very careful not to read back our own high Christological concepts back into Gospel words or phrases that could not possibly have meant the same thing (or even be understood) to Jesus's followers at that time in history

This is almost funny. I can show with this thread the wording in our modern times is less meaningful than it was at the time of Christ.

Originally Posted by Evan

Forgive sins? Could be he would be a conduit of God's grace (like a Jewish priest) that brings the forgiveness of sins rather than forgiving in his own name

Today, we might think that way because of the institution of the sacraments, but not at the time of the incarnation, as Mark 2:7 inarguably demonstrates.

[Blue Horizon]

Originally Posted by tafan

Well, that is simple...

Tafan
You are not really facing the question head on.

You previously opined that "The Jews certainly equated...the title "Son of God" ... with God" [i.e. with He whom we now call the 2nd person of the Trinity]. You suggested Evan spoke in apparent ignorance of Jewish religion and tradition at the time of Christ when he disagreed with this statement.

I asked you to provide a reference/source/quote from a scholar/exegete or even a respected NT commentator whom you may have sourced on such expert understanding of Jewish religion/tradition at the time of Christ.

You will have to forgive us for not accepting your sweeping and somewhat definitive statement that the title "son of god" would have immediately been understood by the average Jew of Jesus's time to identify him as equal with the God of Genesis. Particularly as libraries have been generated by Biblical scholars on this very point. This is a very complex topic that even highly experienced scholars of this period are very loathe to pontificate on.

Are you able to so provide?

[tafan]

Originally Posted by 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" http://www.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]

Originally Posted by tafan

...obvious that she knew Jesus was God incarnate.

Ok. Here is the catholic encyclopedia article on "Son of God" http://www.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 http://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. http://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 http://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 http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/ar...-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: http://www.americancatholic.org/Mess...7/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:

Originally Posted by 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?

4) 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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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" (http://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]

Originally Posted by tafan

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]

Originally Posted by tafan

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.