Socio-Historical Criticism for Luke 1.26-38 NAME:
Socio-Historical criticism is interested in identifying the social, cultural, political, religious, and historical dynamics that are embodied within a text. It seeks to understand how a person in the original audience of the text would have perceived it. Consider the following questions.
- The text describes Nazareth as a πόλις. Look back at your Exegetical Tools exercise. How many people probably lived in Nazareth at the time of Jesus? 1600-2000 people
Considering how we think of it today, would people of Luke’s time understood Nazareth to be a “city” or “town” or “village” or what? The NRSV translation of “town” is probably right. - Would people have believed Mary or found it remarkable if she had reported that an angel had spoken to her? It would be remarkable only to the extent that it was someone as insignificant as Mary to whom the angel spoke.
- The text emphasizes that Mary was a “virgin.” Sociologically, why was this important? It probably indicates that she was young (early teens?) and that she was marriageable. Cf. Deut 22.13-21.
- Mary is said to have been “engaged” / μνηστεύω to Joseph. What sort of transactions does this imply have already occurred? “Betrothed” is probably a better word than our present understanding of “engaged,” because this was not a matter between Joseph and Mary but between their families and involved an exchange of money or property and had legal standing. Cf. Hanson/Oakman, p31.
5. Circle all the terms in the text that are connected with matters of honor/shame.
BTW, note that honor is not honor unless it is recognized publicly. The honorable name given to Jesus will be so recognized in 2.17f.
- In what ways does God assume the traditional role of husband in this account?
In addition to the child being of God, God’s “overshadowing” is a protective role that the husband would be expected to provide. - Is Mary’s statement in v38 an indication of her faith or simply a capitulation to the angel reflecting Mary’s sense of her subordinate position in the culture? (To put it in other ways: Did Gabriel give Mary a choice? Would anyone think that a woman like Mary had a choice? Similarly, though, did Zechariah have a choice? Or did Bathsheba have a choice? > What are the assumptions being made whether someone had a “choice” or not?) In a highly hierarchical society, the angel as an agent of God and thus representative of great power and status has his way with Mary. It is not a matter of choice, but perhaps more an issue of whether one goes along willingly (Mary) or not (Zechariah).
Luke 1:26-38
In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent by God to a town in Galilee called Nazareth, 27 to a virgin engaged to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. The virgin's name was Mary.
28 And he came to her and said, "Greetings, favored one! The Lord is with you." 29 But she was much perplexed by his words and pondered what sort of greeting this might be. 30 The angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. 31 And now, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you will name him Jesus. 32 He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his ancestor David. 33 He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end."
34Mary said to the angel, "How can this be, since I am a virgin?"
35 The angel said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be holy; he will be called Son of God. 36 And now, your relative Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son; and this is the sixth month for her who was said to be barren. 37 For nothing will be impossible with God."
38 Then Mary said, "Here am I, the servant of the Lord; let it be with me according to your word." Then the angel departed from her.