Magnificat
Magnificat
The title commonly given to the Latin text and vernacular translation of the Canticle (or Song) of Mary. It is the opening word of the Vulgate text (Luke 1:46-55): “Magnificat anima mea, Dominum”, etc. (My soul doth magnify the Lord, etc.). In ancient antiphonaries it was often styled Evangelium Mariæ, the “Gospel of Mary”. In the Roman Breviary it is entitled (Vespers for Sunday) Canticum B.M.V. (Canticle of the Blessed Virgin Mary). The “Magnificat”, “Benedictus” (Canticle of Zachary — Luke 1:68-79), and “Nunc Dimittis” (Canticle of Simeon — Luke 2:29-32) are also styled “evangelical canticles”, as they are found in the Gospel (Evangelium) of St. Luke.
FORM AND CONTENT
Commentators divide it into three or four stanzas, of which easily accessible illustrations may be found in McEvilly, “Exposition of the Gospel of St. Luke” (triple-division: verses 46-49, 50-53, 54-55); in Maas, “Life of Jesus Christ” (also triple, but slightly different: vv. 46-50, 51-43, 54-55); and in Schaff and Riddle, “Popular Commentary on the New Testament” (division into four stanzas: vv. 46-48, 49-50, 51-52, 53-55). The Magnificat is in many places very similar in thought and phrase to the Canticle of Anna (1 Samuel 2:1-10), and to various psalms (xxxiii, 3-5; xxxiv, 9; cxxxvii, 6; lxx, 19; cxxv, 2-3; cx, 9; xcvii, 1; cxvii, 16; xxxii, 10; cxii, 7; xxxii, 11; xcvii, 3; cxxxi, 11). Similarities are found with Hab., iii, 18; Mal., iii, 12; Job, v, 11; Is., xii, 8, and xlix, 3; Gen., xvii, 19. Steeped thus in Scriptural thought and phraseology, summing up in its inspired ecstasy the economy of God with His Chosen People, indicating the fulfillment of the olden prophecy and prophesying anew until the end of time, the Magnificat is the crown of the Old Testament singing, the last canticle of the Old and the first of the New Testament. It was uttered (or, not improbably, chanted) by the Blessed Virgin, when she visited her cousin Elizabeth under the circumstances narrated by St. Luke in the first chapter of his Gospel. It is an ecstasy of praise for the inestimable favour bestowed by God on the Virgin, for the mercies shown to Israel, and for the fulfillment of the promises made to Abraham and to the patriarchs. Only four points of exegesis will be noted here. Some commentators distinguish the meaning of “soul” (or “intellect”) and “spirit” (or “will”) in the first two verses; but, in view of Hebrew usage, probably both words mean the same thing, “the soul with all its faculties”. In v. 48, “humility” probably means the “low estate”, or “lowliness”, rather than the virtue of humility. The second half of v. 48 utters a prophecy which has been fulfilled ever since, and which adds to the overwhelming reasons for rejecting the Elizabethan authorship of the canticle. Finally the first half of v. 55 (As he spoke to our fathers) is probably parenthetical.
MARIAN AUTHORSHIP
The past decade has witnessed a discussion of the authorship of the Magnificat, based on the fact that three ancient codices (Vercellensis, Veronensis, Rhedigerianus) have: “Et ait Elisabeth: Magnificat anima mea”, etc. (And Elizabeth said: My soul doth magnify, etc.); and also on some very slight patristic use of the variant reading. Harnack in “Berliner Sitzungsberichte” (17 May, 1900), 538-56, announced his view of the Elizabethan authorship, contending that the original reading is neither “Mary” nor “Elizabeth”, but merely “she” (said). About two years previously, Durand had criticized, in the “Revue Biblique”, the argument of Jacobé for a probable ascription to Elizabeth. Dom Morin had called attention (“Revue Biblique”, 1897) to the words of Nicetas (Niceta) of Remesiana, in a Vatican MS. of his “De psalmodiæ bono”: “Cum Helisabeth Dominum anima nostra magnificat” (With Elizabeth our soul doth magnify the Lord). The works of Nicetas have been edited recently by Burn, and give (De psalmodiæ bono, ix, xi) evidence of Nicetas’s view (see note 4, p. 79, ibid.). In the introduction to Burn’s volume, Burkit rejects the reading “Et ait Elisabeth” as wholly untenable in view of the contradictory testimony of Tertullian and of all the Greek and Syriac texts, but contends for the original reading “she” (said) and for the Elizabethan authorship. He is answered by the Anglican Bishop of Salisbury, who supports the probability of an original reading “she”, but rejects the ascription to Elizabeth (pp. clv-clviii). The witness of the codices and of the Fathers is practically unanimous for the Vulgate reading: “Et ait Maria”; but, apart from this, the attribution of the Magnificat to Elizabeth would, in St. Luke’s context, be highly abnormal. Long before the recent discussion, Westcott and Hort, in the appendix (52) to their “Introduction to the New Testament in the Original Greek” (New York, 1882), had briefly discussed and rejected the reading “Elisabeth”; and this rejection is summarily confirmed in their revised text of the “N. T. in the Original Greek” (London, 1895), 523.
LITURGICAL USE
While the canticles taken by the Roman Breviary from the Old Testament are located with the psalms, and are so distributed as to be sung only once a week, the Magnificat shares with the other two “evangelical canticles” the honour of a daily recitation and of a singularly prominent location immediately before the Oratio, or Prayer of the daily Office (or, if there be preces, immediately before these). The “Magnificat” is assigned to Vespers, the “Benedictus” to Lauds, and the “Nunc Dimittis” to Compline. Six reasons are given by Durandus for the assignment of the Magnificat to Vespers, the first being that the world was saved in its eventide by the assent of Mary to the Divine plan of Redemption. Another reason is found by Colvenarius in the probability that it was towards evening when Our Lady arrived at the house of St. Elizabeth. However this may be, in the Rule (written before 502) of St. Cæsarius of Arles, the earliest extant account of its liturgical use, it is assigned to Lauds, as it is in the Greek Churches of today. The ceremonies attending its singing in the choir at solemn Vespers are notably impressive. At the intonation “Magnificat”, all who are in the sanctuary arise, and the celebrant (having first removed his birretta “in honour of the canticles”) goes with his assistants to the altar, where, with the customary reverences, etc., he blesses the incense and incenses the altar as at the beginning of solemn Mass. In order to permit the elaborate ceremony of incensing, the Magnificat is sung much more slowly than the psalms. A similar ceremony attends the singing of the Benedictus at solemn Lauds, but not of the Nunc Dimittis at Compline.
At the first word of the Magnificat and of the Benedictus (but not of the Nunc Dimittis, save where custom has made it lawful) the Sign of the Cross is made. In some churches the Magnificat is sung at devotions outside of Vespers. Answering a question from Canada, the “Ecclesiastical Review” (XXIII, 74) declares that the rubrics allow such a separation, but forbids the incensing of the altar in such a case. The same review (XXIII, 173) remarks that “the practice of making the Sign of the Cross at the opening of the Magnificat, the Benedictus, and the Nunc Dimittis in the Office is of very ancient usage, and is sanctioned by the very best authority”, and refers to the Congregation of Sacred Rites, 20 December, 1861.
MUSICAL SETTINGS
Like the canticles and psalms, the Magnificat is preceeded and followed by an antiphon varying for the feast or ferial Office, and is sung to the eight modes of plain song. The first verse has, however, no mediation, because of the brevity (the one word Magnificat) of the first half. The Canticles of Mary and of Zachary share (even in the Office of the Dead) the peculiar honour of commencing every verse with an initium or intonation. This intonation varies for the varying modes; and the Magnificat has a special solemn intonation for the second, seventh, and eighth modes, although in this case the usual festive intonation applies, in the second and eighth modes, to all the verses except the first. The “musical”, as distinguished from the “plainsong”, treating of the canticle has been very varied. Sometimes the chanted verses alternated with harmonized plainsong, sometimes with falso bordone having original melodies in the same mode as the plain song. But there are innumerable settings which are entirely original, and which run through the whole range of musical expression, from the simplest harmony up to the most elaborate dramatic treatment, with orchestral accompaniment of the text. Almost every great church composer has worked often and zealously on this theme. Palestrina published two settings in each of the eight modes, and left in manuscript almost as many more. Fifty settings by Orlando di Lasso are in the Royal Library at Munich, and tradition credits him with twice as many more. In our own days, César Franck (1822-90) is said to have completed sixty-three out of the hundred he had planned. In addition to such names as Palestrina, di Lasso, Josquin des Prés, Morales, Goudimal, Animuccia, Vittoria, Anerio, Gabrieli, Suriano, who with their contemporaries contributed innumerable settings, the modern Cecilian School has done much work on the Magnificat both as a separate canticle, and as one of the numbers in a “Complete Vespers” of many feasts. In Anglican services the Magnificat receives a musical treatment not different from that accorded to the other canticles, and therefore quite dissimilar to that for Catholic Vespers, in which the length of time consumed in incensing the altar allows much greater musical elaboration. A glance through the pages of Novello’s catalogue of “Services” leads to the estimate of upwards of one thousand settings of the Magnificat for Anglican services by a single publishing house. Altogether, the estimate of Krebbiel that this canticle “has probably been set to music oftener than any hymn in the liturgy” seems well within the truth.
———————————–
VIVES, Expositiones SS. Patrum et Doctorum super Canticum “Magnificat”, etc. (Rome, 1904), a royal 8vo of 827 double-column pages, containing homilies and commentaries on the Magnificat distributed through every day of the year, prefaced by the Latin paraphrase of URBAN VIII, in thirty-two iambic dimeters; COLERIDGE, The Nine Months (The Life of Our Lord in the Womb) (London, 1885), 161-234, an extended commentary under the title, The Canticle of Mary; NICOLAS, La Vierge Marie d’apres l’Evangile (Paris, 1880), 243-57, argues that the Magnificat alone “proves the divinity of Christianity and even the existence of God”; DEIDIER, L’Extase de Marie, ou le Magnificat (Paris, 1892); M’SWEENY, Translations of the Psalms and Canticles with Commentary (St. Louis, 1901), gives bi columnar trans. from the Vulgate and Peshito, with commentary; A LAPIDE, St. Luke’s Gospel, tr. MOSSMAN (London, 1892), 41- 57; MCEVILLY, Exposition of the Gospel of St. Luke (New York, 1888), 27-33; BREEN, A Harmonized Exposition of the Four Gospels, I (Rochester, New York, 1899), 135-45; ARMINIO in Ecclesiastical Review, VIII (321-27), a devotional essay; SHEEHAN, Canticle of the Magnificat (Notre Dame, Ind., 1909), a poetic meditation in one hundred six-lined stanzas; BAGSHAWE, The Psalms and Canticles in English Verse (St. Louis, 1903), gives (353) a metrical version of the canticle, and in the preface proposes metrical versions for use by Catholics; ALLAN in SHIPLEY, Carmina Mariana, 2nd series (London, 1902), 260-63, a poetical commentary on each verse of the Magnificat–this volume gives other poems in English dealing either with the canticles or with the Visitation (17, 321, 490); cf. also Carmina, 1st series (London, 1893), 78, 360. For non-Catholic metrical versions in English, see JULIAN, Dict. of Hymnology, 2nd ed. (London, 1907), 711 (Magnificat); 801, col. 1 (New Version); 1034, col. 1 (Scottish Translations); 1541, col. 1 (Old Version); MARBACH, Carmina Scripturarum, etc. (Strasburg, 1907), 430-33, gives in great detail the antiphons derived from the Magnificat, the feasts to which assigned, etc. For discussion of the Marian authorship and references, see LUKE, GOSPEL OF SAINT, sub- title Who spoke the Magnificat? See also JOHNER, A New School of Gregorian Chant (New York, 1906), 60-69, the various intonations of the Magnificat in the eight modes; ROCESTRO in GROVE, Dict. of Music and Musicians, s. v. Magnificat; SINGENBERGER, Guide to Catholic Church Music (St. Francis, Wis.), gives (148-150) a list of one hundred approved settings; KREHBIEL in New Music Review (Feb., 1910), 147; PIERO, L’Esthétique de JeanSébastien Bach (Paris, 1907), gives various references (519) to author’s views of Bach’s Magnificat.
H.T. HENRY Transcribed by WGKofron With thanks to St. Mary’s Church, Akron, Ohio
The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume IXCopyright © 1910 by Robert Appleton CompanyOnline Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. KnightNihil Obstat, October 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, CensorImprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York
Fuente: Catholic Encyclopedia
Magnificat
a song in praise of the Virgin used in the evening service of the Roman Catholic, the Lutheran, and Anglican churches. Its name Magnificat it obtained from its first words in the Vulgate, My soul doth magnify the Lord, etc. It was introduced into the public worship of the Church about the year 506. In the 6th century it was chanted in the French churches. In the English Church it is to be said or sung after the first, lesson, at every prayer, unless the 98th Psalm, called Cantate Domino, is sung. Farrar, Eccles. Dict. s.v.; Eadie, Eccles. Cyclop. s.v.
Fuente: Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature
Magnificat
MAGNIFICAT.Our primary interest in the hymn Magnificat (Luk 1:46-55) is centred in the question of (1) its authorship, upon which must largely depend the scope of (2) its interpretation. Then (3) the history of its liturgical use may be briefly summarized.
1. Authorship.Opinions are divided as to the source from which St. Luke derived the materials of his first chapter. Vlter suggests that it is based on an Apocalypse of Zacharias, a Jewish document which has been edited by a Christian, who found the Magnificat attributed to Elisabeth, and transferred it to Mary. Weizscker thinks that St. Luke simply inserted an early Christian hymn. A more satisfactory view is that of Sanday (Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible ii. 639, 644), who suggests that St. Luke was supplied with a special (written) source, through one of the women mentioned in Luk 8:3; Luk 24:10, possibly Joanna, who, being the wife of Herods steward, may also have supplied information about the court of Herod. We know from Joh 19:25 (cf. Act 1:14) that the Virgin Mary was brought into contact with this group. Ramsay (Was Christ born at Bethlehem? p. 88) calls attention to a womanly spirit in the whole narrative, which seems inconsistent with the transmission from man to man, and which, moreover, is an indication of Lukes character; he had a marked sympathy with women. On the supposition that St. Luke used an Aramaic tradition or document, it is possible to account for all the characteristics of style by which Harnack (see below) seeks to prove that he was the author both of the Magnificat and of the Benedictus.
Having described the visit of the Virgin Mary to Elisabeth, and Elisabeths salutation, the Textus Receptus has [] with the variant reading . Then follows the hymn, the text of which has been excellently preserved, the only other doubtful reading being , for which we should probably read .
is the reading of all Greek Manuscripts , of the great majority of Latin Manuscripts , and of innumerable Patristic testimonies, back to the 2nd cent., when Tertullian wrote (de Anima, 26): Exsultat Elisabet, Johannes intus impulerat, glorificat dominum Maria, Christus intus instinxerat.
is the reading of three Old Latin Manuscripts . a (Vercellensis, saec. iv.), b (Veronensis, saec. v.), rhe (Rhedigeranus-Vratislaviensis, saec. fere vii.), in Burkitts phrase a typical European group, to which may be added the testimony of Niceta of Remesiana, de Psalmodiae Bono, c. 9: Nec Elisabeth, diu sterilis, edito de repromissione filio, Deum de ipsa anima magnificare cessat; c. 11: Cum Elisabeth Dominum anima nostra magnificat.
So also Origen, or his translator Jerome, in the 5th Homily on Luke 5 (Lommatzsch, t. v. p. 108 f.): Inuenitur beata Maria, sicut in aliquantis exemplaribus reperimus, prophetare; non enim ignoramus, quod secundum alios codices et haec uerba Elisabet uaticinetur Spiritu itaque sancto tunc repleta est Maria, etc. Harnack thinks that Jerome, if he had been responsible for this reference, would have mentioned whether the reading was in Latin or Greek Manuscripts . But as Jerome was writing in Latin, and the evidence of Niceta shows that the reading Elisabeth was more persistent and widespread in the very district from which Jerome came,having been born in Pannonia, not a great distance from Remesiana,it must be considered still possible that he interpolated the reference.
Lastly we come to Irenaeus, iv. 7. 1 (Cod. Clarom. et Voss.): sed et Elisabet ait: Magnificat anima mea dominum, etc. Cod. Arund. Maria. In iii. 10. 1: Propter quod exultans Maria clamabat pro ecclesia prophetans: Magnificat anima mea dominum, etc. Here the context proves that Irenaeus intended to write Maria.* [Note: In iii. 14. 3, Irenaeus refers to Luk 1:42-45 as exclamatio Elisabet.] Thus it seems probable that it was the translator of Irenaeus, or a copyist, who introduced the reading Elisabet from his Old Latin Bible, and we may safely carry it back to the 3rd century.* [Note: Burkitt still adheres to his view, that Irenaeus regarded Elisabeth as a type of the ancient Jewish Ecclesia prophesying by a Divine Spirit about the Christ.]
How then are we to account for the reading? Bardenhewer thinks that, having dropped out, was supplied by a copyist. But most critics (Burkitt, Harnack, Wordsworth) agree that the original text must have been without either name. Burkitt puts it concisely: Mary was read by Tertullian as well as by all Greek and Syriac texts. This is fatal to Elisabeth; yet, if Mary were genuine, the actual occurrence of Elisabeth in the European branch of the Old Latin would be inexplicable. But if the original text of the Gospel had , …, without either name, all the evidence falls into line.
On the question, which is the right gloss, critics are divided. Harnack and Burkitt argue for Elisabeth, Wordsworth and Spitta for Mary. (1) Harnack does not think that the exclamation of Luk 1:42-45 covers all that is implied in Luk 1:41 . In Luk 1:67 similar words are used about Zacharias, and are followed by the Benedictus. Nothing is said about Mary being filled with the prophetic spirit. It does not seem necessary, on the other hand, to resort to the extreme remedy of Spitta, who refuses to consider that the Benedictus supplies a parallel case, because he thinks that it has been interpolated at this point. The glowing words of Elisabeths address need some reply. Could St. Mary, who answered so freely and so bravely, yet so humbly, to the angel, have been silent at such a moment when addressed by one whom she knew so well? (Wordsworth). Though undoubtedly she is kept, or more probably keeps herself, in the background of this history, and is not spoken of as filled with the Holy Ghost, there is no question of deepest communing with God (Gottinnigkeit, Spitta), and this suffices to explain the outpouring in devotion and faith of a mind stored with OT phrases.
In the OT when any question is addressed to a person or persons whom the reader knows to be present, the formula of reply is frequently and perhaps generally without proper name and without pronoun; cf. Luk 2:49. Later in his Gospel Lk. generally uses ; but the first chapters have a special OT colouring (Wordsworth), in view of which Harnacks argument, that if in Luk 2:46 the subject was to be changed, Lk. would have written , falls to the ground. Further, the words of Luk 2:48 seem to be a reply to Elisabeths . On the other hand, it is only fair to point out that Prof. Burkitt seeks to prove that St. Luke was remarkably fond of inserting or between the speeches of his characters without a change of speaker. [Note: JThSt vii. p. 223.] (2) Another argument has been based on the words , which are said to make it probable that Elisabeth has been the speaker, otherwise Lk. would have written . . or . The Peshitta as well as the Sinai Palimpsest renders, Now Mary remained with Elisabeth. But the Greek has retained the tell-tale (Burkitt).
In the OT the personality of the singer is, as a rule, sunk in the song, and the name is mentioned at the end as if to pick up the thread (cf. Balaam, Num 24:25; Moses, Deu 32:44; Deu 34:1 etc.). It is true that Hannahs name is not mentioned in 1Sa 2:11, but it has been mentioned at the beginning. The name marks the whole section Luk 1:39-56 as what we may call a Mary section, the Syriac reading being an attempt to clear up ambiguity (Wordsworth).
On the whole, then, so far as external evidence goes, the balance of probability is in favour of the reading or gloss Mary. But the more difficult question of internal evidence remains for discussion. Does the Magnificat seem more suitable on the lips of Elisabeth?
Harnack thinks that it was modelled on the lines of Hannahs song, that it expresses the feeling of a mother from whom has been removed what Jewish women felt as the reproach of childlessness. Burkitt suggests that the more corresponds to the fitness of things than a burst of premature song.
Apart from the question raised by Wellhausen whether Hannahs song has been interpolated in 1 Samuel 2, Spitta thinks that it is the song of a warrior rather than a woman, and looks elsewhere for parallels to the Magnificat. Any way, either Mary or Elisabeth would regard it as the song of Hannah, which is the main point before us. We cannot do better than quote the text at this point, with Harnacks parallels, to introduce his argument that St. Luke is thereby proved to be the actual author of the hymn which he puts into the mouth of Elisabeth.
Luk 1:46-47 , (1) 1Sa 2:1 , .
v. 48 . (2) 1Sa 1:11 ; Gen 30:13 , .
Luk 1:49 , ,(3) Deu 10:21 . Psa 111:9 .
Luk 1:50 ,(4) Psa 103:17
Luk 1:51 , (5) Psa 89:11 , .
Luk 1:52 ,(6) Job 12:19 , Job 5:11 .
Luk 1:53 .(7) 1Sa 2:7 , Psa 107:9 . Job 12:19 .
Luk 1:54 , (8) Isa 41:8 , , , . Psa 98:3 .
Luk 1:55 .(9) Mic 7:20 , ; 2Sa 22:51 .
In regard to these parallels Spitta argues with some force that there are nearer parallels in the Psalms; e.g. Psa 33:3-4 ; Psa 34:9 , ; LXX Psalm 34:27 =Psa 39:17 = Psa 69:5 , , , .* [Note: He quotes Psa 9:14 f. Psa 12:4-6; Psa 30:8 as parallels to Luk 1:53.] This is true; but at the same time we cannot doubt that a Jewish woman would turn to Hannahs song as, so to speak, a model, even though the phrases of the psalms which she used often in devotion would come more readily to her lips while working out her idea.
Harnack picks out certain words as having no place in his parallels, and suggests that they are not found in the LXX Septuagint , and being characteristic of Lk.s style, prove that he was really the author of the hymn. Spitta, however, proves that the phrases in question are not only found in the LXX Septuagint , but are not so characteristic of Lk.s style; e.g. (1) is found not only in Luk 1:44; Luk 2:10; Luk 6:23; Luk 17:21, Act 9:11, but also in 2Co 7:11;* [Note: Psa 50:7-8; Psa 53:6, Isa 32:7; Isa 38:17; Isa 44:22; Isa 62:11; Isa 66:15.] (2) , said to be found in Luk 5:10; Luk 12:52; Luk 22:18; Luk 22:69, Act 18:6 only, is also found 2Co 5:16. [Note: Gen 46:30, 2Ch 16:9, Tob 10:13, 11:9, Isa 48:6, Dan 10:17.] These instances alone will suffice to prove how unsafe the foundations are upon which Harnacks argument is based.
There is one other possible source for some of the phrases which has not been mentioned, i.e. the 18 Benedictions of the Synagogue (quoted by Warren, Liturgy of Ante-Nicene Church, p. 243).
Luk 1:49Ben. 2: Thou art mighty, O Lord, world without end.
Luk 1:51Ben. 12: Let the proud speedily be uprooted, broken, crushed, and humbled speedily in our days. Blessed art Thou, O Lord, who breakest down the enemy and humblest the proud.
Luk 1:54-55Ben. 1: Blessed art Thou who rememberest the pious deeds of our fathers, and sendest the Redeemer to their childrens children. Blessed art Thou, O Lord, the shield of Abraham.
On the whole, then, in spite of Harnacks arguments, there is still room to believe that St. Luke translated, or perhaps to some extent worked up into a Greek hymn, the materials supplied to him in an Aramaic tradition or document. There was no unnatural seeking after effect. In reply to Elisabeths address no conventional answer would seem in place. On the other hand, Prof. Burkitt regards the whole of Elisabeths words as the acknowledgment of Marys salutation, and finds a striking parallel in Luk 2:25-35, i.e. the conversation of Mary and Simeon. In both cases Marys interlocutor is said to have a holy Spirit, in both cases the whole of the words recorded is assigned to the interlocutor, and the words themselves consist partly of pious meditation, partly of words addressed exclusively to Mary (JThSt [Note: ThSt Journal of Theological Studies.] vii. p. 225). This is a question perhaps of sentiment. But few devout believers in the Incarnation would hesitate to express their profound gratitude for the words of simple faith and hope, grounded, as Spitta has certainly shown, as much on the Psalms as on Hannahs song, a spontaneous offering of praise from a lowly spirit continually in communion with the Divine, and therefore never lacking words of praise. We may regard these words as spoken in substance by the Virgin Mary, and yet maintain the truth of the phrase of Ignatius about the Word proceeding from silence. The silence remains unbroken. No personal dread of the possible reproach not of childlessness but of shame, no personal exultation in this transcendent blessedness among women, find expression.
2. Interpretation.The scope of interpretation varies in accordance with the view held concerning the authorship. Harnacks description is correct so far as it goes: The artistic arrangement of the pronouns, which governs the hymn, expresses exactly the progress of thought, advancing from the subjective to the objective in order to return again to the subjective, though in a higher form. But he fails to express the situation so clearly described by Liddon (p. 13) from the internal evidence.
Like the songs of Zacharias and Simeon, it is something more than a psalm, and something less than a complete Christian hymn. A Christian poet, living after the Resurrection of Christ, would surely have said more; a Hebrew psalmist would have said less than Mary. In this Hymn of hers we observe a consciousness of nearness to the fulfilment of the great promises, to which there is no parallel even in the latest of the psalms; and yet even Mary does not speak of the Promised One, as an Evangelist or an Apostle would have spoken of Him, by His Human Name, and with distinct reference to the mysteries of His Life and Death and Resurrection. Her Hymn was a native product of one particular moment of transition in sacred religious history, and of no other; when the twilight of the ancient dispensation was melting, but had not yet melted, into the full daylight of the new.
In Strophe i. (Luk 1:46-47) she offers praise to God as His due, with all powers of the soul, that is, of imagination and impulse; and of the spirit, with the faculties of reason and memory and will.
In Strophe ii. (Luk 1:48-49) she dwells on the distinction vouchsafed to her in becoming the Mother of the Incarnate Son. She is to live in the memory of mankind not because she deserves it, but because He whose Name is holy so wills.
In Strophe iii. (Luk 1:51; Luk 1:53), turning away from self, she rises, as in moments of spiritual enlightenment any one may rise, to larger views of Gods purposes in the shaping of human history. His presence and power are vindicated in the humbling of the proudest dynasties and the triumph of the meek. This thought is characteristic of a group of psalms (9, 10, 22, 25, 35, 40, 69, 109; cf. 4 Ezr (2 Es) 11:42, Ps-Son 5:13 f.) which must often have been in the minds of the little groupJoseph, Mary, Zacharias, Elisabeth, Simeon, Annawho were looking for the redemption of Israel.
In Strophe iv. (Luk 1:54-55) she comes back to the thought of the Messianic time now beginning: the assurances given to the fathers should be fulfilled. The source of the Incarnation is found in Gods attributes of loving-kindness and truth.
3. Liturgical use.In the Eastern Church the Magnificat is sung as a morning canticle. This also was its use in the West at one time. In the directions at the end of the Rule of Aurelian, bp. of Arles, c. [Note: circa, about.] 540, it is mentioned as used in the Office of Lands with antiphon or with alleluia, following OT psalms and canticles, and followed by Gloria in excelsis.* [Note: Migne, Patr. Lat. lxviii. 393.]
In the treatise of Niceta, de Psalmodiae Bono, to which we have already alluded, the primary reference is to Vigils, to the use, therefore, of the Magnificat in the evening. The list of canticles mentioned corresponds to that in use in the Church of Constantinople at that time. When the later-hour offices were developed in the West, it was, in accordance with such usage, attached to Vespers, with varying antiphon. Thus it passed into the first Prayer-Book of Edward VI., and has since been used in Evensong after the first Lesson.
In Julians Dict. of Hymnology there are references to several metrical versions which found favour from the 16th century. But these are of no importance.
Literature.O. Bardenhewer, Biblische Studien, vi. (1901) p. 187; F. C. Burkitt in A. E. Burns Niceta of Remesiana, 1905, and JThSt [Note: ThSt Journal of Theological Studies.] vii. 220; A. Harnack, Sitzungsberichte der k. preuss. Akad. der Wissenschaften, 1900, xxvii. p. 537; F. Jacob, Revue dhist. et de litt. religieuses, ii. p. 424; H. P. Liddon, The Magnificat, 1889; W. Sanday, art. Jesus Christ in Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible ; F. Spitta, Das Magnifikat ein Psalm der Maria und nicht der Elisabeth, Theol. Abhandlungen, 1902; Vlter, ThT [Note: hT Theol. Tijdschrift.] xxx. (1896) p. 224; Bp. Wordsworth in A. E. Burns Niceta of Remesiana; T. D. Bernard, Songs of the Holy Nativity, 1895, pp. 56, 65.
A. E. Burn.
Fuente: A Dictionary Of Christ And The Gospels
Magnificat
MAGNIFICAT.The hymn Magnificat (Luk 1:46-55) has been well described as something more than a psalm, and something less than a complete Christian hymn (Liddon). It is the poem of one who felt nearer to the fulfilment of the promises than any writer of the OT. But no Evangelist of the NT could have failed to speak of Christ by His human name, writing after His Death and Resurrection.
In the TR [Note: Textus Receptus.] the hymn is ascribed to the Virgin Mary, but there is a variant reading Elisabeth which demands some explanation. Mary is the reading of all the Greek MSS, of the great majority of Latin MSS, and of many Early Fathers as far back as Tertullian (2nd cent.). On the other hand, three Old Latin MSS (cod. Vercellensis, cod. Veronensis, cod. Rhedigeranus-Vratislaviensis) have Elisabeth. This reading was known to Origen (Hom. 5 on Luk 5:1-39), unless his translator Jerome interpolated the reference. Niceta of Remesiana (fl. c. 400) quoted it in his treatise On the good of Psalmody. We can trace it back to the 3rd cent in the translation of Irensus. There is fairly general agreement among critics that the original text must have been simply and she said, so that both Mary and Elisabeth should be regarded as glosses.
On the question which is the right gloss, opinions are divided. In favour of Elisabeth it has been suggested that the exclamation Luk 1:42-45 does not cover all that is implied in Luk 1:41, and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost. Such words when used of Zacharias in Luk 1:67 are followed by the Benedictus. Are we to look on the Magnificat as a corresponding prophecy on the lips of Elisabeth? On the other hand, the glowing words of Elisabeth (Luk 1:42-45) need a reply. She who bad answered the angel so humbly and bravely (Luk 1:38) would surely speak when thus addressed by a near relation. Indeed, Luk 1:48, all generations shall call me blessed, seems like a reply to Elisabeths Blessed is she that believed in Luk 1:45. In the OT the formula of reply is frequently without a proper name, and the first chapters of Lk. have a special OT colouring.
Another argument has been founded on the reading of Luk 1:55 : Mary abode with her, where the Pesh. and the Sinai Palimpsest render with Elisabeth. It is suggested that the tell-tale with her of the Greek text proves that the hymn was ascribed to Elisabeth. But in the OT the personality of the singer is, as a rule, sunk in the song, and the name is mentioned at the end as if to pick up the thread (cf. Balaam, Num 24:25; Moses, Deu 32:44; Deu 34:1 [Bp. Wordsworth]). On the whole, the external evidence is in favour of the gloss Mary. The question remains whether the hymn is more suitable on the lips of Elisabeth as expressing the feeling of a mother from whom the reproach of childlessness has been removed. Such an idea seems to express very inadequately the fulness of meaning packed into these few verses. The first words remind us of the song of Hannah as a happy mother (1Sa 2:1), but the hymn is founded to a much greater extent on the Psalms, and the glowing anticipation of the Messianic time to come befits the Lords mother. It is characteristic that she should keep herself in the background. No personal fear of the reproach of shame, which might be, and indeed was, levelled against her, no personal pride in the destiny vouchsafed to her, mar our impression of a soul accustomed to commune with God, and therefore never lacking words of praise.
The hymn has four strophes. In strophe i. (Luk 1:46-47) she praises God with all the powers of soul and spirit. In il. (Luk 1:48-49) she speaks of living in the memory of men, not as something deserved but because it is the will of the holy Lord. In iii. (Luk 1:51-53) she rises to a large view of the working out of Gods purposes in human history, in the humbling of proud dynasties, and the triumph of the meek. In iv. (Luk 1:54-55) she comes back to the fulfilment of the promises in the Messianic time, beginning with the Incarnation, which is the crowning proof of Gods mercy and love.
A. E. Burn.
Fuente: Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible
Magnificat
mag-nifi-kat: The name given to the hymn of Mary in Luk 1:46-55, commencing My soul doth magnify the Lord. Three old Latin manuscripts substitute the name Elisabeth for Mary in Luk 1:46, but against this is the authority of all Greek manuscripts and other Latin versions. The hymn, modeled in part on that of Hannah in 1Sa 2:1 ff, is peculiarly suitable to the circumstances of Mary, and plainly could not have been composed after the actual appearance and resurrection of Christ. Its early date is thus manifest.