Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why would Mary ask this?
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 1 of 14 (72254)
12-11-2003 6:30 AM


In Luke's Gospel chapter 1:30-34 there is an alleged conversation between Mary and Gabriel:
30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God.
31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.
32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.
34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
One first reading this passage I really didn’t see anything wrong with it, but then, after reading it and analysing it a line at a time, Mary’s question in verse 34 appears to be a bit out of place.
The angel Gabriel has appeared to Mary to tell her that she is going to conceive, Gabriel has NOT said that she is already pregnant, it clearly says that she ‘shalt’ conceive sometime after this conversation. Now Mary is betrothed to Joseph, they are to be married so why does she say:
How shall this be, seeing I know not a man
Verse 35 says ‘And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
Mary’s words, and verse 35, reinforce the fact that she is not yet pregnant, so what is the problem, what makes her ask this pointless question?
I can accept that she has not had intercourse but I cannot accept that she would give a reply such as this. There really is no reason at all for her to answer in such a way.
Even if she weren’t betrothed to Joseph, why would it be surprising to her to learn that sometime in the future she would conceive?
Is this a late interpolation that was added after Matthew made a hash of applying a non-messianic virgin birth to Jesus, or is this a clear example of the storyteller’s art?
Brian.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by ConsequentAtheist, posted 12-11-2003 7:19 AM Brian has not replied
 Message 3 by doctrbill, posted 12-12-2003 9:35 PM Brian has replied
 Message 14 by Prozacman, posted 01-03-2004 2:49 PM Brian has not replied

  
ConsequentAtheist
Member (Idle past 6238 days)
Posts: 392
Joined: 05-28-2003


Message 2 of 14 (72256)
12-11-2003 7:19 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Brian
12-11-2003 6:30 AM


I can accept that she has not had intercourse but I cannot accept that she would give a reply such as this. There really is no reason at all for her to answer in such a way.
Even if she weren’t betrothed to Joseph, why would it be surprising to her to learn that sometime in the future she would conceive?
Interesting - and nicely done.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Brian, posted 12-11-2003 6:30 AM Brian has not replied

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2764 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 3 of 14 (72616)
12-12-2003 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Brian
12-11-2003 6:30 AM


How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
Another way to say this might be, "How's that? I'm not even having sex."
I see your puzzle but let me suggest an alternative understanding.
It seems reasonable that a young girl might respond this way, assuming a distant wedding date and an urgency in the angel's tone and manner. Indeed, she apparently conceived forthwith; for she says,
quote:
"Behold I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be unto me according to your word." And the angel departed from her. verse 38 RSV
"In those days ... "
[A few days later (Living Bible)] [After those days (Modern Language Bible)]
Mary goes to visit her cousin Elizabeth who, at verse 36, is six months pregnant. And when Liz hears Mary's voice, her own fetus starts kicking! Then, addressing Mary, Liz:
quote:
... exclaimed with a loud cry, "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb."
"And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" vss. 42,43 RSV
This does indeed sound like "the storyteller's art" and he is clearly telling us that Mary is already pregnant ('fruit of thy womb' - 'mother of my Lord').
By the time she and Joseph (in those days) travel to Bethlehem for the census, she is already, "great with child." 2:5 KJV
Bottom line: I believe the "storyteller" wants us to understand that Mary got pregnant the night the "angel" came into her bedroom. Well, Duhhh!
"How can I get pregnant?" Mary asked.
"The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee." The angel answered.
Sex education circa 4BC.
db
[This message has been edited by doctrbill, 12-12-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Brian, posted 12-11-2003 6:30 AM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by ConsequentAtheist, posted 12-12-2003 9:55 PM doctrbill has replied
 Message 11 by Brian, posted 12-24-2003 11:13 AM doctrbill has replied

  
ConsequentAtheist
Member (Idle past 6238 days)
Posts: 392
Joined: 05-28-2003


Message 4 of 14 (72617)
12-12-2003 9:55 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by doctrbill
12-12-2003 9:35 PM


It seems reasonable that a young girl might respond this way, assuming a distant wedding date and an urgency in the angel's tone and manner.
Oh my, you've actually heard heard "urgency in the angel's tone"? All this from someone who, with a straight face, talks of reasonable when confronted by an Angel.
This does indeed sound like "the storyteller's art" and he is clearly telling us ...
Cleary? And where did you acquire your expertise in Koine Greek idiom?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by doctrbill, posted 12-12-2003 9:35 PM doctrbill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by doctrbill, posted 12-12-2003 11:46 PM ConsequentAtheist has replied

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2764 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 5 of 14 (72630)
12-12-2003 11:46 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by ConsequentAtheist
12-12-2003 9:55 PM


What's your bitch?
Have anything useful to say?
db

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by ConsequentAtheist, posted 12-12-2003 9:55 PM ConsequentAtheist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Rei, posted 12-13-2003 2:18 AM doctrbill has replied
 Message 7 by ConsequentAtheist, posted 12-13-2003 6:32 AM doctrbill has replied

  
Rei
Member (Idle past 7013 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 6 of 14 (72643)
12-13-2003 2:18 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by doctrbill
12-12-2003 11:46 PM


ConsequentAtheist is just mean to everyone; don't take it personally. I'm not sure why (s)He is that way.
------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by doctrbill, posted 12-12-2003 11:46 PM doctrbill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by doctrbill, posted 12-13-2003 11:02 AM Rei has not replied

  
ConsequentAtheist
Member (Idle past 6238 days)
Posts: 392
Joined: 05-28-2003


Message 7 of 14 (72650)
12-13-2003 6:32 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by doctrbill
12-12-2003 11:46 PM


What's your bitch?
Pretense and fabrication.
Have anything useful to say?
People should know (and acknowledge) what they don't know. You wrote: "he is clearly telling us that Mary is already pregnant". I remain curious as to the source of your clarity about the future tense "thou shalt conceive in the womb".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by doctrbill, posted 12-12-2003 11:46 PM doctrbill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by doctrbill, posted 12-13-2003 10:58 AM ConsequentAtheist has not replied

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2764 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 8 of 14 (72672)
12-13-2003 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by ConsequentAtheist
12-13-2003 6:32 AM


ConsequentAtheist writes:
I remain curious as to the source of your clarity about the future tense "thou shalt conceive in the womb".
Thou shalt respond to my post.
Now, how long will that take?
[This message has been edited by doctrbill, 12-13-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by ConsequentAtheist, posted 12-13-2003 6:32 AM ConsequentAtheist has not replied

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2764 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 9 of 14 (72674)
12-13-2003 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Rei
12-13-2003 2:18 AM


Thanks for the heads-up Rei. He seems a bit like Rrhain with less finess.
db

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Rei, posted 12-13-2003 2:18 AM Rei has not replied

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2764 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 10 of 14 (73762)
12-17-2003 12:36 PM


Bump.
Brian must be on vacation. Xmas break?

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 11 of 14 (74996)
12-24-2003 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by doctrbill
12-12-2003 9:35 PM


Hi dB, sorry for the delay in replying.
Another way to say this might be, "How's that? I'm not even having sex."
I really do not think that this is the same at all, it has nothing to do with what has happened in the past it has to do with a future event, she is going to conceive, she has not already conceived, and seeing as she is betrothed to Joseph it should not have been surprising.
I see your puzzle but let me suggest an alternative understanding.
Sure, I always enjoy your posts and value your input.
It seems reasonable that a young girl might respond this way, assuming a distant wedding date and an urgency in the angel's tone and manner.
But are these two assumptions suggested by the text, or are they even plausible assumptions? I think it is more likely that the engagement period was quite short and that the marriage would happen soon as one of the most important functions for a couple at that time was to reproduce and reproduce quite a lot, so I don’t think it is a fair assumption. I also, do not see how we can assume that there was urgency in the angel’s voice, I do not see that in the text.
But, even if we grant your assumptions, I still do not think that Mary’s alleged reply is plausible at all. Say we assume a distant wedding date, wouldn’t it be more realistic for Mary to assume that Joseph would get her pregnant out of wedlock? I think it is ludicrous for a girl to say ‘I cannot get pregnant because I do not know a man’ I think it is much more likely that they would simply wonder which man it is that they are going to ‘know’.
Indeed, she apparently conceived forthwith; for she says.
Yes I agree, but I do not think that this has any relevance to her response, it wouldn’t matter if she was going to conceive that night or in ten years time, the response in the text really doesn’t make sense.
Imagine even telling a young girl today that she going to become pregnant at some time in the future, she would probably either say ‘no way’ or she would say ‘well I would like to have children some day, so I hope that I do’.
This does indeed sound like "the storyteller's art" and he is clearly telling us that Mary is already pregnant ('fruit of thy womb' - 'mother of my Lord').
Yes it is telling us that she is pregnant here, but she was not pregnant when Gabriel spoke to her, and it may well have been that she conceived by the Holy Spirit on the night of the conversation, but I still think the response is a late addition to the text, a device to support a flawed virgin birth prophecy.
By the time she and Joseph (in those days) travel to Bethlehem for the census, she is already, "great with child." 2:5 KJV
Yes and we already know that the census is a fiction and that there was no need for Mary to travel anyway.
Bottom line: I believe the "storyteller" wants us to understand that Mary got pregnant the night the "angel" came into her bedroom. Well, Duhhh!
"How can I get pregnant?" Mary asked.
"The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee." The angel answered.
If only the author of Luke used your words then this fairytale would be a little more credible. But, in giving your alternative reading here, you have actually constructed a conversation that is absolutely nothing like the text that I quoted in the original post.
But I do have some ideas as to why this ‘conversation’ was added to Luke, or at least added by the author of Luke to the copy of mark that the author was copying from.
What I find interesting is that the earliest Gospel has no birth narrative at all, Mark’s Gospel starts when Jesus is around 30 years old when he is about to be baptised by John. Mark has none of the paraphernalia that can be found in Matthew and Luke’s nativity legends, so either Mark knew nothing about these legends or they were so well established that Mark felt it unimportant to mention them. I personally feel that Mark had heard nothing about these legends, probably because they hadn’t been dreamed up yet, the reason that this is the more likely of the two is because if Mark had heard of these wonderful events then he wouldn’t have written this:
Mark 3:20-21
Then Jesus entered a house, and again a crowd gathered, so that he and his disciples were not even able to eat. When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, "He is out of his mind.
Now if Mark had heard of a virgin birth, if he had heard of Gabriel’s announcement to Mary, the Magi, the Star and all the rest of the legendary bits and bobs then this verse would be out of place. Why would his family think that Jesus was a nut if these things had happened, Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus, Gabriel visited Mary and Joseph to tell them who Jesus is, the Magi worshipped him, Simeon told them who Jesus was, all this happens and they still think Jesus is a nut, why don’t they question their own sanity, it was after all Mary and Joseph who frequently chatted to Gabriel.
Mark’s lack of knowledge of a virgin birth would not have been a problem for gentile Christians, they wouldn’t really care how Jesus was born. But among Jewish Christians there would be a need for a bloodline from King David, they were expecting the Messiah to come from David through Solomon and I think that Mark knew that Jesus wasn’t, I think this is why Mark has Jesus openly admitting that he isn’t a Son of David.
Mark 12:35-37:
While Jesus was teaching in the temple courts, he asked, "How is it that the teachers of the law say that the Christ is the son of David? David himself, speaking by the Holy Spirit, declared: " 'The Lord said to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet." David himself calls him 'Lord.' How then can he be his son?" The large crowd listened to him with delight.
The problems with Jesus genealogy kicked in when Jewish Christians insisted that Jesus had to be of David’s bloodline, and to show that he was, they essentially just made up a bloodline for Jesus that tied him to David. There obviously were at least two different fictional genealogies because Matthew and Luke each have a different one, and we both know that no matter how many Christians cry about it, these two genealogies are supposed to be Joseph’s, none of then are meant to be Mary’s at all.
The problem of course is that why did Matthew render these genealogies useless by insisting that Jesus was not Joseph’s son? I think that the genealogy in Matthew was so entrenched in his community’s faith that he had to include it, then the author of Matthew makes an error in using the Septuagint whilst combing it for anything at all that he can glue onto Jesus to make him into something he wasn’t. The error of course was the mistranslation of al’mah, the rest has been discussed many times at the forum and I am sure you are familiar with all the problems of Isaiah 7:14.
Matthew’s Gospel is awash with out-of-context references to the Old Testament, some are extremely embarrassing, but the Virgin Birth was not even a messianic prophecy, but Christians don’t let small things like this stand in the way of turning Jesus into THE messiah, which is something he most definitely wasn’t.
So, I thnk that the conversation between Mary and Gabriel just didn't happen, it is an awkward insertion that was intended to support the Virgin Birth, but all it supports is the folktale nature of the Gospels.
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by doctrbill, posted 12-12-2003 9:35 PM doctrbill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by doctrbill, posted 12-24-2003 10:36 PM Brian has not replied

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2764 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 12 of 14 (75065)
12-24-2003 10:36 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Brian
12-24-2003 11:13 AM


Brian.
I have reviewed your original post and I think I now understand your question.
Brian writes:
The angel Gabriel has appeared to Mary to tell her that she is going to conceive, ... Now Mary is betrothed to Joseph, they are to be married so why does she say:
How shall this be, seeing I know not a man
Verse 35 says ‘And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
Mary’s words, and verse 35, reinforce the fact that she is not yet pregnant, so what is the problem, what makes her ask this pointless question?
I can accept that she has not had intercourse but I cannot accept that she would give a reply such as this. There really is no reason at all for her to answer in such a way.
Even if she weren’t betrothed to Joseph, why would it be surprising to her to learn that sometime in the future she would conceive?
She might be surprised if that ‘sometime’ were tonight! Which brings us to what I called urgency in the angels voice. I know this is not in the text but she did, apparently, get pregnant that same night.
Thou shalt conceive, does not specify a period of time, and if I understand the subjunctive, it need not refer to the future. Thou shalt put up thy hands, is a statement suggesting both urgency and peril. In the context of such a moment, it is clear to the listener that the speaker is not talking about tomorrow. "Thou shalt conceive," if said just prior to mounting, would, I think, qualify as an urgent message.
I don’t doubt that the story is less than accurate but I suspect it may contain an element of truth. In those days there were ‘gods’ and there were ‘men’: Rulers and the ruled. If there is any truth to it, I must understand it as a time when one such ‘god,’ of the royal line, got a young girl pregnant out of wedlock. Wouldn't be the first time that happened. And what a line he used! - You've got royal blood?! Cool! Me Too! "This baby could be the next king!"
Such encounters were not new at the time, and they continue to happen nowadays. But today, the horney interloper might say, "This baby could be the next president!"
The more things change the more they stay the same.
db

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Brian, posted 12-24-2003 11:13 AM Brian has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by ConsequentAtheist, posted 12-25-2003 9:32 AM doctrbill has not replied

  
ConsequentAtheist
Member (Idle past 6238 days)
Posts: 392
Joined: 05-28-2003


Message 13 of 14 (75083)
12-25-2003 9:32 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by doctrbill
12-24-2003 10:36 PM


"Thou shalt conceive," if said just prior to mounting, would, I think, qualify as an urgent message.
Priceless.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by doctrbill, posted 12-24-2003 10:36 PM doctrbill has not replied

  
Prozacman
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 14 (76390)
01-03-2004 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Brian
12-11-2003 6:30 AM


Dry-Humor time. The angel Gabriel was really one of those angels that went into the daughters of men back in Genesis, & Mary was experiencing her first bout with PMS.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Brian, posted 12-11-2003 6:30 AM Brian has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024