μακαριουσιν
I respond to a recent criticism by TF (responding to a criticism of mine).
It’s my position that Luke 1:45 refers to the gracious bestowal of perfect knowledge to Mary by “the Lord.” Mary then proceeds to respond to this exclamation made by Elizabeth who was “filled with the holy Ghost,” by elaborating exactly that which was delivered to her by the Lord and on which she believed. The content of that includes the makariousin which is an indicative future 3 person plural active voice verb, as I am given to understand it. This is done immediately after Mary’s imperative to Elizabeth (idou = “be cognizant,” “be aware,” “behold,” “be perceiving”). It is also my position that in light of that imperative, Mary was expressing an aspect of that part of the deposit given to her by the Lord (by way of the angel Gabriel). This deposit was later recorded by Luke under inspiration as well. In your parsing of it, you split it up into bits which you wish to consider inspired and bits which you wish to characterize as “possibly” “hyperbolic.”
A number of questions arise. Are there grammatical concerns which would have rendered a second imperative in v. 47 awkward, improbable, impossible? Is it more reasonable to consider the remark (makariousin) in the context I have just laid out as also inspired or more reasonable to consider it uninspired? The entire passage of Luke 1 makes it clear that the makariousin ought also to be considered both inspired and imperative, despite your objection in isolating the parsing of the Greek word as being definitive for your case. That’s what I meant by pedantic and disingenuous. Not that you were dealing in trivia (for we are not) nor that you were being dishonest (for I don’t believe you were). Rather, you were concentrating on the trees and missing the forest.
My knowledge of Greek is not spectacular. I am not a trained scholar. You haven’t given us any reason to think you are either. Perhaps to clarify you could offer credentials, and also address my questions above. I use various resources to help me in my Scripture studies. Among them are texts of Greek instruction, but I am no expert and am an autodidact. You may respond or not as you wish.
3 Comments
May 15, 2009 at 7:00 pm
While I agree generally with what you’re saying – especially about the fact that TF has presented an uncredentialed argument that I am not at all disposed to accept just because he says so (and I wouldn’t expect him to accept that sort of thing from me either, for the very same reasons) – I don’t think idou has any particular influence upon how we ought to interpret the verb(s) following it. Example: Rv. 3:20, “Behold, I stand at the door and knock…” But my Greek is looooong past its freshness date, so there is no way I’m going to get into an argument about it with anyone.
This is not to say that I concede his point. As I’ve become fond of saying/quoting the CCC, we must read Scripture within the living tradition of the whole Church, not according to Protestant traditions that deny fundamental aspects and dogmas of the Faith. TF does not read the Bible as a Catholic, so his views on its interpretation are no less suspect to me than mine are to him because I read it as a Catholic and not a Protestant.
Lastly, even if we were to find (upon due research) that TF presents the literal interpretation of the passage in a manner that happens to be consistent with how the Church and the Fathers have understood that same literal interpretation, it still must be said that TF stops there as though that is all that can be said about the passage. Of course, it’s not. We may and must consider the other senses of the passage, and one that seems rather obvious to me in this case is that if the Blessed Virgin says that all generations will call her blessed, we surely ought to do so – whether or not it’s an imperative.
In short, even if we were to concede TF’s point about the literal sense, I think the Catholic doctrine of the veneration of Mary is very well justified on the basis of this passage’s other senses, particular the moral sense.
TF’s argument doesn’t go far enough, because (as a good Protestant) he only considers the literal sense of the passage; but that literal sense (even if we grant his argument) in no way undermines the other senses of the passage. And we Catholics are (as the CCC teaches) still fully on solid ground in looking to those other senses, and applying them in accord with Sacred Tradition.
Okay, I’m done blathering now.
Good post; thanks!
Peace,
RdP
May 15, 2009 at 8:14 pm
Hmm. I think the idou of Mary is a direct response to Elizabeth’s inspired “Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For behold as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in my ears, the infant in my womb leaped for joy. And blessed art thou that hast believed, because those things shall be accomplished that were spoken to thee by the Lord.”
It is that last sentence that Mary ties into: she elucidates what she was taught by the Lord in her Magnificat, and if that is the case, it is imperative, because it would be the Word of the Lord. It is so identified, I believe. My rendering indicates that God said, “all generations shall call you blessed,” and then Elizabeth said “all these things shall be accomplished that were spoken to thee by the Lord,” and Mary recapitualated it for a threefold emphasis. The angel Gabriel had said to her “‘Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.’ Who having heard, was troubled at his saying, and thought with herself what manner of salutation this should be. And the angel said to her: ‘Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found grace with God. Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and shalt bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name Jesus. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the most High; and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father; and he shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever. And of his kingdom there shall be no end.’”
So, the continuation of the message delivered to her by the Lord through His angel Gabriel is presented. And if it is the Lord’s word, and if Mary is responding to Elizabeth with an imperative for her to receive true teaching about which Elizabeth just witnessed under inspiration, then the rest follows as incumbent upon all generations. As Scott Hahn said, if God said “Scott Hahn, you are a woman,” and Hahn replied “No I’m not!” it would be in falsetto and he would be rather surprised to see herself in the mirror at that instant, for (of course) God’s saying so would necessitate its truth and Hahn would be a woman.
Here’s Mary’s Magnificat after Gabriel’s words and Elizabeth’s words, neither of which are disputed as inspired:
“My soul doth magnify the Lord. 47 And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour. 48 Because he hath regarded the humility of his handmaid; for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed. 49 Because he that is mighty, hath done great things to me; and holy is his name. 50 And his mercy is from generation unto generations, to them that fear him. 51 He hath shewed might in his arm: he hath scattered the proud in the conceit of their heart. 52 He hath put down the mighty from their seat, and hath exalted the humble. 53 He hath filled the hungry with good things; and the rich he hath sent empty away. 54 He hath received Israel his servant, being mindful of his mercy: 55 As he spoke to our fathers, to Abraham and to his seed for ever.”
Nota bene: she issues two “becauses” (gar): because He regarded her humility (lowliness) and because He did great things for her, all generations will call her blessed. Note also how her words comport with our Lord’s in His beatitudes (concerning the meek, the lowly). She will be exalted, because she humbled herself and assented with her fiat (which noone denies was graciously given to her to give). This is attested to with what she goes on to say. The context of the whole chapter necessitates the position I’ve taken, I think.
Thanks for responding! It is helpful to see things with input like that. I hope the discussion continues, and I hope (if I can make time) to comment on some of your recent work. Pelikans series is such excellent food for thought!
May 17, 2009 at 9:14 pm
It’s a worthwhile point you make, and one that answers to something it is all too easy for us to do (and which I did and have always done with this passage) – namely, to bifurcate (!) between Elizabeth’s words and Mary’s, which are her direct reply to Elizabeth.
Well, like I said I’m not about to argue the question, because I’m way too far out from the days when I was better qualified to do so. You make a good case for your view, it seems to me.
Peace,
RdP