More Thoughts on the "Ave Maria"

I have written about this before, most recently on September 13 2019. At that time, this was my ending paragraph:

In 1960, when I was reciting those Latin words and feeling twinges of discomfort about the "second part," I was not yet consciously a feminist. But I have consciously been one for almost forty-five years, and I will not accept the subtly nefarious actions of the Patriarchy just because the title "Saint" is affixed to the names of the perpetrators. If this makes me a heretic, then so be it.

The "second part," mentioned above, consists of these words:

sancta maria mater dei ora pro nobis peccatoribus nunc et in hora mortis nostrae.

In that earlier blog post I told how this second part of the prayer had been added in the sixteenth century, and said that it had always seemed separate to me, and that I had always been vaguely uncomfortable with it.

The reasons for my discomfort included:

1) "Mother of God" reflects a claim that Rabbi Yeshua never made, one which to a Jew is blasphemous.

2) The idea of Miriam praying to her male child sounds quite patriarchal.

3) The medieval characterization of humans as primarily sinners is poor psychology; a more positive description might lead to a more positive result.

4) That same characterization sounds like a control mechanism put forward by the patriarchal, institutional Church.


Yes, I'm a heretic (literally one who "chooses" what to believe and what not to believe), and not only because I'm a feminist.

Choosing what to believe and what not to believe is called critical thinking. It's very important, especially in these times when countless lies are told in order to obscure the truth, and the same lies are embraced by cultish followers.

I've said many times that it is important to understand the relationships among the Synoptic Gospels, and their intended audiences. It is important if we are to understand them correctly. I accept that the Gospel of Matthew has priority (see my earlier writings on the "Layered Matthew Hypothesis," and the "Synoptica" series). I also accept that the Gospel of  Luke was mostly translated from Matthew (including Hebrew Matthew), for Greek-speaking Christians, and that the Gospel of Mark was written originally for the Latin-speaking Christians of Rome.

So it isn't really surprising that the only scriptural basis for the Ave Maria prayer (first part) is to be found in the Gospel of Luke, or that it reflects a non-Jewish theology and claims that Rabbi Yeshua never made.

Nor is it surprising that the institutional Church, itself extremely patriarchal in its outlook, would tack on a patriarchal "second part" of the prayer.

From the point of view of Christianity, I am definitely a "heretic," in its literal sense, and not only because of my feminism.

 It is worth noting that, while the Pater Noster is reflected in Hebrew Matthew, the Ave Maria is only (and partially) supported in Luke (and the second part, not at all). The third prayer that Catholics say when reciting the Rosary, the Gloria Patri or Glory Be, reflects an all-male Trinity, which seems a biological impossibility. The trinitarian baptismal formula of canonical, Greek Matthew (Mt. 28:19) is not in Hebrew Matthew at all; it is a late addition. But at least in Hebrew the word for "spirit," רוּחַ, can be either male or female. So it should be, in saecula saeculorum. Amen.


Text © 2020 by Donald C. Traxler aka Donald Jacobson Traxler.