Maria Barga, Assistant Professor of Sacred Scripture at the Pontifical College Josephinum, Columbus, Ohio
Abstract:
Within the biblical tradition, the annunciation to Zechariah in Luke 1 provides a prelude to the annunciation to Mary and lays the foundation for major themes throughout the rest of the Gospel of Luke. Scholars tend to contrast these two annunciation scenes and, in doing so, portray Zechariah’s response negatively. However, Zechariah reappears in v. 59 and makes another significant contribution with his canticle in vv. 68-79. Zechariah’s return in the narrative, giving voice to a time-honored canticle, suggests there is more to this character than scholars might tend to grant. Through the lens of the Zechariah narratives in Q. 3:37-41 and Q. 19:2-11, the function of Zechariah in Luke 1 comes into better focus.
This paper first provides a brief overview of modern biblical scholarship’s reception of the Lukan Zechariah narrative followed by a close textual analysis of the Lukan text. Second, an analysis of the Quranic Zechariah narrative and its reception in Islamic traditions raises the question, “Is Zechariah really at fault in the Lukan narrative?,” and presents another possible interpretive model. Finally, a comparison between Islamic tradition and early Church reception of Zechariah points towards a common interpretation of the Zechariah narrative.
Both the Lukan Zechariah and the Quranic Zechariah provide insight into the structure of their respective sacred texts and subsequent interpretations. In particular, the undeniably positive portrayal of Zechariah in the Qur’an highlights the question of Zechariah’s initial “failure” in Luke 1. A more careful analysis of the function of the Lukan Zechariah allows the “reluctant prophet” motif to come to the fore. The resulting positive view of the Lukan Zechariah corresponds with early Church tradition, in particular the reception of Zechariah in the Protoevangelium of James and the inclusion of Zechariah’s canticle in the Liturgy of the Hours of some Christian traditions. Through this analysis, the Lukan Zechariah emerges as a prophet with a significant role who does not need to be regarded as simply a foil to Mary. In both Luke and the Qur’an, Zechariah presents the possibility of honest questioning where silence leads to a greater revelation.
Thank you for this interesting paper, Maria. If I read you right, you are essentially saying that the Qur'an has taken you back from recent Christian puzzlement over the Zechariah texts to earlier Christian engagement with them. Have you looked at the treatment of Zechariah in pre-Islamic Syriac tradition?
I shall be interested to see how you develop this paper.
Thank you, Ida, for your comments and question. Yes, that is basically where I am going with this and hopefully I can develop it more fully with some of the research material that has come in. I have not considered the treatment of Zechariah in pre-Islamic Syriac tradition but I will see if I can find anything before the conference next week. It would be great if I could find something there.
Thank you so much for your excellent paper Maria. I really enjoyed reading it and could find common themes between your intertextual reading of Zechariah stories and my own intertextual reading of Joseph stories! One of my arguments there was that Muslim exegetes seem to have tried to interpret the Joseph narrative in Q12 in accordance with the Islamic doctrine of the infallibility of prophets (isma). Accordingly, they have felt obliged to portray an infallible image of Joseph due to his established role as a prophet even if the narrative itself does not always guarantee such a reading. What was interesting for me with this regard was how the secondary concept of isma has at times gained a position almost as scared as the scripture itself, to the degree that any exegesis that attempts to interpret the narrative outside this framework has been deemed inappropriate at best and even heretical in some instances! (for example with regard to the possibility of Joseph's sexual temptation towards Potiphar's wife.)
The quranic narrative of Zechariah that you brilliantly discussed here seems to allow less room for any doubt about the possibility of "failure" or "lack of belief" or "weak belief" compared to the possibility of Joseph's tendency to do sin in the quranic narrative. But still, your discussion provided me with yet another example of the common tendency in Islamic exegesis of "prophet narratives" to portray these characters as infallible according to the doctrine of Isma. I was wondering if you came across any references to the doctrine of Isma in your reading of Islamic sources in relation to Zechariah?
Many thanks again for your inspiring paper. I look very much forward to learning more from you at the conference.
Thank you, Shirin, for your comments. I looked through the sources I have on hand and I did not come across isma directly connected to Zechariah although there is a reference to David's infallibility. If I should come across such a reference, I will let you know.
It has been good to read your paper, Maria and to be stimulated afresh to consider how Zechariah is presented in Luke and in the Qur'an. I look forward to hearing any further additions if you have been able to unearth more from pre-Islamic Syriac tradition.
Some of the detail in your paper resonates with elements of material I worked on when doing some other comparative study a few yeas ago. FYI at that time (1) I was drawn to look at the Lucan portions which refer to Zechariah in a slightly different way under the influence of Richard Bauckham's observations about the structure of Luke 1:5-80 being chiastic - basically bounded by the two Zechariah portions (actually narrator comments outside these portions) but being (his word) "gynocentric" (R. Bauckham, 'Elizabeth and Mary in Luke 1" in Gospel Women: Studies of Named Women in the Gospels, 2002). (2) Like you I also looked at special births (including to barren women, and others unlikely to conceive). That lead me behind Brown's work to Robert Alter's identification of 'type-scenes' for which he uses the Bible's Annunciation events as case study (in the early 80s). Alter observes that it is common in these scenes for the women to be the ones with wit and wisdom (eg., Hannah rather than Elkanah, Samson's mother rather than Manoah. Even arguably shown in the Abraham & Sarah accounts, given the uneven behaviour which you also have observed.) (3) I note that references to both John and Jesus 'growing and becoming strong ...' (Luke 1:80. 2:40, 2:52) as well as the Magnificat, seem to be intended intertextual echoing of the start of 1 Samuel, in which it is the mother who plays such a pivotal role (even as there are resonances with the Abraham and Sarah story). With these things in mind I am still left wondering if one of the big differences is that non-canonical material eschews the gender inclusive aspects of the canonical gospels. It is Luke alone who shows Elizabeth to be a personality. (Bauckham notes that her barrenness and her words after conceiving 'put her clearly in the company of unusually favored biblical mothers (cf., especially Gen 21:6-7; 30:31-33; 31:22-24).)
I am wondering how your initial question - and your final answers - might be affected if one were to accept that there is not so much a 'Zechariah narrative' as a 'gynocentric' birth narrative reflecting Old Testament annunciation 'type-scenes' at the start of Luke's gospel?
Thank you for your comments and insights. I think you raise very good questions which I will take into account and attempt to address in my presentation. At the moment, I have some thoughts on how a gynocentric focus and OT type-scenes would impact my analysis. Off the bat, I am not certain that it would affect the main question I had, "Is Zechariah's response really that bad?", but it would change I how situate it within the wider narrative. I may have to post a longer response to your question once I have thought it through some more.
The contrast between the responses to revelation of Zechariah and Mary (Luk 1:18/38) is supported by Luk 7:28, which contrasts the ministries of their respective sons. (But still, Zechariah doesn't actually use the word 'sign', and I'm not convinced Mary is quite off the hook - Luk 1:34 is almost a request for a sign.)
Thank you, Andy, for your comment. I agree, Luke seems to intentionally compare Zechariah/Mary and John/Jesus.
I must confess that I remain uncomfortable with Zechariah being punished and Mary not when it seems that their questions in essence were the same. Since the text itself is very clear that Zechariah's response/question is wrong, we are left with trying to understand how it differs to Mary's.
In researching this question, it seemed to me that too much emphasis has come upon Zechariah being wrong because he should have known better. Instead, I see a possibility of reading it as a new "correct" response. While Zechariah clearly wanted some kind of proof/evidence ("How will I know..."), perhaps Mary intuitively provides the "correct" response. Her "How will it be?" seems to give a different nuance that focuses more on God's plan and how it will be accomplished rather than on "knowing" perhaps by means of proof (or sign, if you will) that would mark the fulfillment of the plan rather than expounding upon the plan itself.
These are some ideas that make some sense to me but I am by no means convinced that this is what Luke intended all along. Perhaps the intention is to lead us further into the text and question assumptions we may hold!
This discussion reminds me of discussion of Cain and Abel: 'What did one do right and the other do wrong?' The answer of Luke seems to have to do with faith - something invisible to us which has, perhaps, little to do with the form of his question.