tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7155226280212467063.post7491061627808814566..comments2024-03-05T06:16:30.628-06:00Comments on Mary and Mariology: Mary and DevelopmentServant of Maryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13686441055922333147noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7155226280212467063.post-35653992233219943552012-05-10T16:02:54.583-05:002012-05-10T16:02:54.583-05:00I really appreciated your comments about interpret...I really appreciated your comments about interpretations of the theological development of the image of Mary. I want to comment on your paragraph about Professor Fulton’s discussion of the way historical phenomenon have shaped our understanding of Marian devotion. I really want to continue to explore this further.<br /><br />I wonder how much the interpretation of Mary throughout the centuries reflects the development of societies, of philosophical paradigms, of cultures, of notions of gender. I do not mean to privilege our own understanding of the body, of scripture, of religion, and femininity. But I speculate that differing interpretations since the death of Christ reveal as much about the interpreters and their environment as theological concepts. I think specifically about the increasing awareness of the body in the narratives of Caulibus and Bernard, part of a larger tradition of bodily awareness emerging after 1000 C.E. represented not only in these mediations on Mary but also in increasingly realistic depictions of the human body in art. I think these theological developments must be rooted in larger historical trends of man (and woman’s) concept of his or her self. <br /><br />I think the most accessible of these trends are new developments about Mary in the last 100 years. You mentioned the feminist theology re-reading Marian devotion as echoing goddess sentiment. This reveals many things about the individuals of our own society. For one, there is a belief that everything must come from something (i.e. the attribution of Marian devotion to earlier goddess worship.) Two, there is an increasing desire to reinsert the feminine into the masculine narrative of history, at points anachronistically. <br /><br />In general scripture is a lens through which we view ourselves and our own beliefs. I love to think about how interpretations of Mary reveals other things about a person and their environment.<br />-Mary WServant of Maryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13686441055922333147noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7155226280212467063.post-88959168761344895312012-05-10T16:01:48.302-05:002012-05-10T16:01:48.302-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Servant of Maryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13686441055922333147noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7155226280212467063.post-74331953686050875032012-03-30T20:20:56.410-05:002012-03-30T20:20:56.410-05:00I second your statement that "the same could ...I second your statement that "the same could be held with Mary, except with only the most devoted readers."<br /><br />In relation to the Trinity, it can be argued that the Bible begins with the Trinity, if Genesis 1:1-2 and John 1:1-3 are read together. Different places in the Bible but talking about the same point in time (in the beginning).<br /><br />For Mary, I do agree that it's much harder to argue that she is present throughout Scripture. <br /><br />For instance, Gen. 3:15 "foreshadows" the birth of Christ but as the descendant of woman as the broad category of the sex. From this verse alone you can't say it's directly talking about Mary, though it foreshadows her coming role in the prophesy. At Genesis 3:15, it could be any woman. But the Spirit in Gen 1 can't be any Spirit and the Word in the Beginning in John 1:1 can't be anyone other than Jesus.Sandra Parkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09982749331150977133noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7155226280212467063.post-26472430279140653492012-03-29T14:45:12.469-05:002012-03-29T14:45:12.469-05:00(CONT)
I've not been too successful looking f...(CONT)<br /><br />I've not been too successful looking for a simple example. Perhaps we can take a cue from Monday's readings on Mary as Second Eve. As we shall see, Justin, Irenaeus and Tertullian took their cue from Paul who presented Christ as the second Adam. They found in Mary a second Eve. Our readings show the close attention that Irenaeus and Tertullian show to the scriptural texts in drawing the parallel between Eve and Mary. The hymn (c.9th c. AD?) "Ave Maris Stella," "Hail Star of the Sea" took up the biblical parallelism between Eve and Mary, and found its symbol in Gabriel's simple and non-descript address to Mary, "ave." Noticing that 'ave' is the reverse of Eva (Eve's name in Latin), the hymn found Mary's reversal of the Fall and role in redemption as Second Eve remedying the sin of the First Eve and so on, already present in that one little word, 'ave.' (The hymn-writer and its popularity are apparently not thrown off by the also common spelling of Eve as 'Heva,' including the often silent 'h', changing the look of the word, but not its sound.) Here are the texts (found: http://www.preces-latinae.org/thesaurus/BVM/AveMarisStella.html ; See also: http://divinumofficium.com/cgi-bin/horas/officium.pl) : <br /><br />Sumens illud Ave<br />Gabrielis ore,<br />funda nos in pace,<br />mutans Hevae nomen.<br /><br />Taking that sweet Ave,<br />which from Gabriel came,<br />peace confirm within us,<br />changing Eve's name. <br /><br />Your next question is a good one to raise. [Regarding the spiritualization or allegorization of Hebrew Bible texts to refer to Mary and Jesus:] "Would this make it a richer, or even more “developed” source on the Mother of God (and all that accompanies such a concept) than the New Testament scriptures that deal with Mary explicitly.* In this sense, are the Song and (say) Proverbs 8 more keys than signs or types?" <br />This I cannot answer, but I think we would profit by looking carefully at the use of Song of Songs and other texts in each writer's thought to see if they may displace or take precedence over the NT texts.<br /><br />~ RJPServant of Maryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13686441055922333147noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7155226280212467063.post-16551644259504143112012-03-29T14:44:12.089-05:002012-03-29T14:44:12.089-05:00Dear TA,
Thanks for your comment. I decided to wai...Dear TA,<br />Thanks for your comment. I decided to wait until after yesterday's session to respond to your question. You asked: <br />"If Newman’s insights work doctrinally, are they historiographically “Whiggish” and evolutionary in teleology (i.e., the truest manifestations of doctrine are always in the present and future; the earliest prophets and authors of scripture were only acorns to the oak tree of present understanding)–something similar to James Frazer’s Golden Bough? It’s a predicament, surely, of the “historical religions” to justify predecessors (even if only for the sake of pedigree) while explaining the historical development of doctrine."<br /><br />Your 'pot-stirrer' is an intriguing question. I would asnwer that Newman's development of doctrine is not of that evolutionary kind and feels no need to 'justify predecessors.' You seem to worry about a Hegelian picture in which the earlier formulations are less true or lesser manifestations, if I read your comment correctly. But Newman's task is rather to justify the successors. A classic problem for tradition was posed among the continental reformers, Luther and Calvin, who asserted scripture was the gold standard from which all doctrine must be derived (strict view; even more strictly, derived from explicit statement in scripture) or that scripture was the standard which judges all subsequent traditions (less strict). Luther loved to call subsequent traditions (which he decided were not in line with his reading of scripture) "human" or "man-made" in opposition to the inspired scripture, guaranteed not by humans but by the Holy Spirit. <br />Newman found himself in a Church of England which he hoped would be a via media between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism (for example, Lutheranism), but holding on to the gold standard of scripture and traditions together. (For various reasons, he found this compromise to be untenable.) His development of doctrine undermined the Reformers' suspicions of traditions by showing the ties from later tradition back to former, undoubted scriptural antecedents.<br /><br />I would further argue that development as Newman saw it does not jeopardize or 'shortchange' antecedents but rather elevates and increases their value. Development often (perhaps most often) takes place through extended reflection upon details of a text which finds hidden meaning in those details. Spiritual reflection of the original text finds hidden treasures or resources of meaning in words that seem at first plain. Such products or insights of reflection become developmental when the spiritual community accepts and incorporates the insights. These accepted insights then become a platform or point of departure for a later generation's reflection, and so on. To return to our oak metaphor: The rings of the oak tree then, encircle and pay homage to the golden core. If the core is gone or displaced, like in a hollowing oak tree, the tradition is moribund.<br /><br />(CONT.)<br />~RJPServant of Maryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13686441055922333147noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7155226280212467063.post-20751321728178361452012-03-27T17:20:06.672-05:002012-03-27T17:20:06.672-05:00I’m glad that RJP brought historicism (not in Karl...I’m glad that RJP brought historicism (not in Karl Popper’s sense) into the discussion through “development.” I think this is helpful in considering Mary in scripture. The lecture and discussion also had me thinking of historiographies and hermeneutics. I appreciate the theological compliment to thinking historically about Mary in these readings.<br /><br />To stir the pot: If Newman’s insights work doctrinally, are they historiographically “Whiggish” and evolutionary in teleology (i.e., the truest manifestations of doctrine are always in the present and future; the earliest prophets and authors of scripture were only acorns to the oak tree of present understanding)–something similar to James Frazer’s Golden Bough? It’s a predicament, surely, of the “historical religions” to justify predecessors (even if only for the sake of pedigree) while explaining the historical development of doctrine. RJP’s presentation of Newman provides us a good example of one way this tension has been dealt with.<br /><br />Can we shortchange both earlier religious devotees and ourselves by adopting such a view rather than, say, seeking to discover what Huston Smith called “forgotten truths” (in this case, modes of understanding and codifying reality in writing)?<br /><br />I ask because I approached the Old Testament readings with some skepticism, but experienced them in a new way. I remembered being taught that the Song of Solomon was considered by some to be the most inspired of Old Testament writings, and saw how this piece could be viewed as a coded “manual” for communing with the divine such that–if read the right way and combined with the right meditative practices–it could lead to spiritual experience and knowledge. Would this make it a richer, or even more “developed” source on the Mother of God (and all that accompanies such a concept) than the New Testament scriptures that deal with Mary explicitly.* In this sense, are the Song and (say) Proverbs 8 more keys than signs or types? In RJP’s nice observations about the appearance of Mary in early Christian writings (including chronological notes: thank you!), could Medieval mystics point to the nameless woman from late first-century Revelation as an example of how experience (here visionary) of the “cosmic” Mary precludes or overrides historical particulars like name (i.e., earlier authors like Solomon didn’t include Mary’s name, not so much because they couldn’t know it, but because it falls to the wayside as a minor detail in the face of “cosmic” experience of/with the Mother of God)? <br /><br />*Of course, I agree that avoiding historical question begging here requires the notion of prophecy.<br /><br />TAServant of Maryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13686441055922333147noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7155226280212467063.post-91558519334592260092012-03-27T16:07:10.185-05:002012-03-27T16:07:10.185-05:00You have anticipated tomorrow's discussion per...You have anticipated tomorrow's discussion perfectly: what happens when the development moves beyond the scriptural texts? But I agree: Marian devotion is present from the very beginning of our Christian documents, if not perhaps in Paul or Mark, most definitely Matthew, Luke, and John--otherwise why include these stories at all? It is not that the New Testament says "so little" about Mary, but rather the fact that it says *so much* that should get our attention. After all, Paul didn't even think it necessary to name "the woman" of whom the Son was born.<br /><br />RLFBServant of Maryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13686441055922333147noreply@blogger.com