I have a question about Mary’s role in the documenting of the New Testament text. For example, in Luke “Mary pondered all these things in her heart” must have come from her relaying this story to the authors directly or indirectly. I suppose the whole Annunciation text fits this description. Does it? Wedding at Canna?
What I am trying to establish is how much the authors of the NT might have relied on her as a witness and what this proves about how she was seen by the early chruch.
It is assumed by scholars that St. Luke took care of Mary from the time of the Ascension to her Assumption. This is reasonable, since Luke wrote the most about Mary. While in his care, she probably answered many questions and detailed accounts of Christ’s life.
However, it is important to remember that the writings which became Sacred Scripture were centered on the life and teachings of Christ not Mary.
Most of what we know about Mary has been handed down via Tradition.
The Bible is inspired by God even if Mary never relayed the story to anyone. If we found out tomorrow that something didn’t happen exactly as recorded in the Bible it wouldn’t change the fact that God is the primary author and He put exactly what He wanted us to know in the Bible so that we could be saved.
Events are important only insofar as they teach us about God, our relationship to Him, how to know, love and serve the Lord, and our salvation. Salvation is the point, not events.
I find this very surprising that these things could have ended up in scripture without Mary relaying them to anyone. I appreciate all scripture is inspired, but I didn’t think they were inspired in that sense. I always thought the authors were documenting what they new by their human experience to be the truth.
I agree that inspiration is not based in literalist details, but Scripture is a work of literature that documents events. I think it’s fair to say that Scripture is supra-literal. It is documentation plus. There are real events, there are parables, metaphors, analogies, etc…
But Christ is The Word, he was born of a woman, he has a body, he walked, talked, breathed, suffered, died. The Incarnation is an event. The Scriptures document realities, and where the scriptures document actual events, the events are true and valuable in themselves, not just for our spiritual edification. To say otherwise would lead us to Gnosticism I suppose.
Again, I never said that the Bible didn’t document actual events or that there are not actual historical events in the Bible. I said “even if they didn’t happen.” I never said they didn’t happen.
I also never said that events are in the Bible for our “spiritual edification.” Those are your words, not mine. People seem to be putting words in my mouth.
The Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation says that the purpose of the Bible is so that we can be saved. Salvation is the point of Scripture and the very reason why God condescended to give it to us. All the events in the Bible, whether factual, made up out of thin air, embellished, metaphor, allegory, prophecy or visions are there so that we might be saved.
My entire point is that we need not focus on whether they are factual or not, and have to look past that. We have to determine what God is teaching us so that we might grow closer to him and be saved. People have all kinds of spiritual crisis’ because some date or fact doesn’t line up and it need not be that way. That’s my entire point.