How commentators mishandle the Ark parallels — and why 'three months' rather than 'until John was born'

Pitre names three failure modes. 'Many books and commentaries simply ignore the parallels between Mary and the Ark, as if they do not exist. Others acknowledge that the parallels are present, but fail to provide a plausible explanation for their existence. Still others, after picking out one parallel and dismissing it as too subtle, proceed as if they have explained away the presence of all of the parallels.' The simplest explanation is the right one: Luke intends them. His clinching detail is Luke's oddly specific 'three months' — 'Why doesn't Luke just say Mary stayed until the birth of John?' — which only the Ark's three months at Obed-edom's house explains. Max Thurian, a Protestant, saw it: Elizabeth 'cannot withhold the great cry of ecstasy which characterized the appearance of the Ark.'

• Luke 1:56 — 'about three months' — the detail that demands explanation.
• 2 Samuel 6:11 — the Ark's three months with Obed-edom.
• Luke 1:42 — Elizabeth's 'great cry.'

This is the argument for authorial intent behind the Visitation parallels: the cumulative weight, and one detail that has no other explanation, show that Luke — not later Catholic readers — made Mary the Ark.

• Modern scholars Pitre cites — Max Thurian (p 56)