My aim in this first chapter is to provide an overview of New Testament passages in which Mary the mother of Jesus is featured, and to show how they are interpreted by selected patristic and modern writers.1 This will act as a foundation for later chapters in the book, some of which will refer to biblical texts. The task involves a comparison of the gospels because they present different aspects of the biblical Mary. It is possible to trace a movement in the writing of the gospels that moves from a minimal treatment of Mary in Mark towards much richer detail in Matthew, Luke, and John. Yet, despite the lack of Markan emphasis on Mary, there is the possibility—recognized in Eastern Christian traditions, by certain patristic exegetes in the West, and by some modern commentators—of a Markan/synoptic tradition of Mary as a witness to the crucifixion as well as the one recorded in John, and a resurrection appearance of Jesus to her described in Matthew. Why is this important? The answer is that it would act as a counterbalance to a negative way of biblical critical thinking about Mary which runs like this: there is not much written about Mary in the New Testament; Mark’s Gospel is the earliest and it scarcely mentions her; the birth stories are clearly legendary and comparatively late; the presence of Mary at the crucifixion in John is also a late tradition and has a symbolic value peculiar to that gospel. This conclusion is incomplete and suggests bias but it is prevalent. However, establishing a universal gospel tradition in which Mary participates in the events of the first Easter would counteract that tendency and provide evidence of the importance of Mary in the very earliest Church.
Ecclesiastical traditions in various denominations lead to divergent assessments of Mary’s role in the Bible.2 The implication for Marian theology of the Protestant emphasis on solus Christus and sola scriptura is well known. Nevertheless, despite their high view of Mary, Catholic and Orthodox theologians would agree with Emmanuel Lanne when he says, ‘New Testament Marian doctrine depends on Christology’ (2007a: 37). Christ is at the centre of the New Testament proclamation and, from Ignatius of Antioch (Epistle to the Ephesians 7),3 Mary served to provide the guarantee of his humanity: while also divine, he really was born of a human mother (Gal. 4:4).
While this chapter will focus on explicit references to Mary in the gospels and Acts, this does not exhaust scriptural reflection on Mary. She has long been identified with the woman in the vision of Revelation 12:1–18. There are also many passages in the Hebrew Scriptures that provide images associated with Mary in traditional interpretations.4 Locating Christian motifs in the Hebrew Scriptures goes right back to the New Testament, of course (e.g. Paul identifying the rock in the desert as Christ in 1 Cor. 10:4). Rachel Fulton Brown (2017) has reminded modern scholars of the rich tradition of exegesis of Mary in the Old Testament that is easily (and, for her, wrongly) dismissed as the creative thinking of the medieval mind rather than central to Christian tradition. The point is that, just as exegetes identified Christ with the ‘Lord’ (Yahweh or Adonai) of the Hebrew Scriptures, they found Mary in these texts too, anywhere that there was a reference to the dwelling place of the Lord or the locus of his presence. Thus ‘Mary was the tabernacle, the city, the ark, the one containing the light of the Lamb and the true bread of heaven’ (Fulton Brown 2017: 225). A wide range of examples of Marian motifs in the Hebrew Scriptures can be found in the documents in which the Immaculate Conception and Assumption were defined as dogmas by popes in 1854 (see the overview in Denaux 2007: 24–34). Ineffabilis Deus, defining the Immaculate Conception in 1854, describes Mary’s vocation using images which were already well established, focusing on passages such as: the enmity between the woman and the serpent originating in Eden (Gen. 3:15); Noah’s ark (Gen. 6:11–8.22); Jacob’s ladder (Gen. 28:11–17); the burning bush (Exod. 3:1–6); the impregnable tower and walled garden (Song of Songs 4:4,12); Zion, the city of God (Ps. 86/87:1–3); the Temple (Isa. 6:1–4). Munificentissimus Deus, defining the Assumption in 1950, refers to the Ark of the Covenant (Ps. 131/132:7–8); the triumphal entry of the Queen (Ps. 44/45:10–15); the spouse of the Song of Songs. Finally, of course, Mary is associated with Wisdom.5
There is one other important observation to make in an overview of Mary as she is portrayed in Scripture. Post-Holocaust analysis of early Christian history is clearly relevant for an understanding of the biblical Mary. In the last half century or so, there has been a growing recognition that the gospels emerged in a period when there was a considerable rift between Christians and Jews, and that this is reflected in their treatment of the Jewish people in general as Jesus’ opponents and accusers. Studies that stress the Jewishness of Jesus have served to provide a corrective to this tendency. This has been paralleled by an acceptance in the Churches that antisemitism has been a tragic and unnecessary inheritance of the Christian tradition for which repentance is needed. In this light, it is crucial to stress that the portrayal of Mary in the New Testament establishes her Jewish heritage, despite the anti-Jewish nature of late patristic narratives describing her death and assumption, or medieval Christian traditions in which she was known as the ‘bane of the Jews’.
There is a strong consensus that Mark is the earliest gospel and one of the primary sources for the other three; it is also the gospel that provides the least information about Mary the mother of Jesus. This could be seen to be problematic for Marian theology. The writer of Mark’s Gospel appears to distance Jesus from his family, including his mother. Jesus’ relatives in general do not understand him (3:21); those who associate Jesus with his family are the foolish people from Nazareth, who fail to appreciate the nature of his mission (6:3). The list of people who reject Jesus when he returns to Nazareth is telling: ‘Prophets are not without honour, except in their home town, and among their own kin, and in their own house’ (6:4 NRSV). Mary is mentioned as one of the family from whom Jesus seeks some distance. In 3:31–5, Jesus prefers ‘those who sat around him’ to his mother, brothers, and sisters, saying, ‘Whoever does the will of God is my brother and sister and mother’. The possible alienation of Jesus from Mary that this might represent has been emphasized in Protestantism (Wright 1989: 26–7; Graef and Thompson 2009: 291).
However, some of Jesus’ brothers held primacy in the post-Easter Church (see e.g. Bauckham 2004), along with the most prominent disciples. Reading Galatians 2 along with Acts 15:12–21 leads to the conclusion that the New Testament acknowledges James the brother of Jesus as the leader of the Christian community centred in Jerusalem in the period before the Jewish War. James’ prominent status in some early Christian traditions is confirmed in the Gospel of Thomas 12 (Elliott 1993: 137) and in later Jewish Christian literature such as the Pseudo-Clementines (Painter 2001: 36–54). His prestige as ‘James the Just’ ending in martyrdom was recorded using earlier traditions by the fourth-century Church historian Eusebius (The History of the Church 2.23).6 Yet this was far from emphasized in the New Testament memory of the early Church. The simple fact is, as stated by Boring (2012: 436), ‘Nothing about his [James’] death or later veneration in some Christian and Jewish circles is found in the New Testament, which is primarily shaped by the broad spectrum of Gentile Christianity. If we only had the canonical documents, James would appear as the representative of marginalized Jewish Christianity …’. Consequently, there have been several studies which have re-examined the figure of James in the last twenty years or so (e.g. Bernheim 1997; Bauckham 1999; Chilton and Neusner 2001).7
James appears to have maintained strict adherence to the Torah amongst Jewish Christians; this is Paul’s complaint and provides a motive for the minimization of James’ contribution to the early Church. In Galatians 2, Paul acknowledges three ‘pillars’ of the Church: James ‘the brother of the Lord’, Cephas (= Peter, according to John 1:42), and John. In the synoptic gospels, however, the disciples who form the inner circle around Jesus are Peter, James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother. The gospel accounts do not include James the brother of the Lord among the active members of the movement around Jesus. John’s Gospel remarks that ‘not even his brothers believed in him’ (7:5). Yet, in the gospels (e.g. Mark 6:3; John 2:12) and in Acts (1:14), the mother and brothers of Jesus are mentioned as a unit which makes it likely that they were important as such in the early Church. The brothers are referred to along with apostles in 1 Cor. 9:5 as travelling missionaries. The relatives of Jesus, sharing with him the Davidic inheritance, commanded considerable authority in the first-century Church and beyond (Bauckham 2004: 45–133). So did the evangelists, starting with Mark, attempt to write the importance of the brothers of Jesus out of the Church’s history? This has implications for our understanding of the portrait of Mary in Mark’s Gospel.
Those anxious to preserve the integrity of the gospels attempt to qualify this problem. Bauckham (2004: 49) says that it is possible that Mark wished to oppose the role that James and the relatives played in the early Church, but he prefers to see the downplaying of them in this gospel as encouragement for Christians who faced opposition from families. Against this, it is difficult to see why such prominent people in the history of the early Church would be used for such an illustration, except to denigrate them. Bauckham (2004: 57) also suggests that, by the time of the writing of the gospels, the Palestinian Churches and their leaders were no longer influential across the Roman Empire. But this fails to explain why other long dead disciples were emphasized in the gospel accounts of the ministry of Jesus. In another attempt to defend Mark’s Gospel from the accusation of being negative towards the family of Jesus, Azize (2017: 48) argues that: ‘To speak of disparagement of family is, then, a way of making a point not about the family, but about the surpassing greatness of the commandment to love God’ (an interpretation supported elsewhere, e.g. Collins 2007: 235). But this too has to contend with the fact that this point, valuable though it is, is made at the expense of the memory of Jesus’ family.
Of course, a reading of Mark confirms how much the gospel diminishes over-dependence on any of those who had handed on the gospel; rather, following Paul, it prioritizes the convert’s encounter with the risen Christ as Messiah and Son of God. This could be said to be the first reformation of the Church as it moved towards a Gentile-centred future. The flaws of potential mediators are prominently displayed; they are witnesses rather than authorities. The disciples abandon Jesus at his crucifixion; they fall asleep in Gethsemane; Judas betrays him; Peter is referred to as ‘Satan’ because of his misunderstanding of the nature of Jesus’ mission (8:33) and he later denies Jesus; James and John the sons of Zebedee make claims to leadership when it is not appropriate (10:35–45). Even the women finding the empty tomb ‘said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid’ (16:8, shorter and original ending). With this stark conclusion without resurrection appearances (although they are implied in 16:7), the reader is left to encounter the risen Christ for her- or himself. The Anglican and Roman Catholic authors of Mary: Grace and Hope in Christ suggest that ‘Mark indicates that growth in understanding is inevitably slow and painful, and that genuine faith in Christ is not reached until the encounter with the cross and the empty tomb’ (2004: 19).
In Mark, few people receive praise from Jesus. Those who do include people who believe in his powers of healing, and thus help to make them effective: the woman with haemorrhages (5:34), the Syrophoenician woman (7:29), and Bartimaeus, a blind beggar (10:52). There are also those who understand Jesus’ teaching and mission: the scribe for his answer (12:34) and the anointing woman (14:6–9). Finally, there is the poor widow who is praised for her generosity (12:43). These are all exemplars of Christian belief, but they are not identified with the known apostles and members of the family.
Nevertheless, for the eleven disciples and others, there is at least the fact that their contribution to the ministry is described along with their faults. For Jesus’ family, there is no compensating passage in the gospel to counteract the negative impressions made in chapters 3 and 6. The long held view, as expressed by Bauckham (2004: 56) that, ‘During his ministry Jesus’ relationship with his family was not entirely smooth. … At least for part of the ministry they were not among his followers’, has no force at all if it is conceded that the gospels represent a layer of early Christian tradition which deliberately downplayed the status of James and the family of Jesus. Apologists for Mark on this issue do not engage sufficiently with literature in which the reputation of James and the family have been rediscovered, and in which the gospel tradition is acknowledged as originating in a context where it might have been expedient to overlook the relatives’ role and influence. Therefore, the lack of mention of Mary in Mark’s Gospel can be seen in this light; it need not rule out the possibility of a pre-gospel tradition in which she has an important role. The tendency to downplay the family continues throughout the other gospels as far as Jesus’ brothers are concerned, but Mary becomes more prominent in Matthew, Luke, and John.
Matthew’s Gospel has used Mark as a major source and so inherits the flawed reputations of family and disciples, but there is also some counterbalance. Here Peter is the rock on which the Church will be built (16:18); it is not James or John who claim leadership, but their mother on their behalf (20:20–8). The account of Jesus’ mother and brothers being contrasted to disciples largely follows Mark, except that Matthew omits mention of the family trying to restrain Jesus (12:46–50). The story of Jesus’ rejection in Nazareth (13:54–8) is similar to Mark’s; however, the word ‘kin’ is omitted in the list of people who misunderstand Jesus. Therefore, in Matthew there is evidence of a softening of Mark’s negative portrait of Jesus’ relatives and disciples.
Luke’s encounter at Nazareth has the crowd saying. ‘Is this not Joseph’s son?’ (4:22), thus amending the unusual statement in Mark that Jesus is the ‘son of Mary’ (6:3). In Luke’s version, Jesus is without honour in his own town only; there is no mention of ‘kin’ or his ‘own house’. Luke has two other passages which seem to derive from Mark’s description of Jesus distancing himself from Mary. However, these have to be read in the light of Mary being such a central and positive figure in chapters 1 and 2 (Brown et al. 1978: 164–72). Anyway, Luke 8:19–21 does modify the parallels in Mark and Matthew. Jesus, when told that his mother and brothers are outside, says ‘My mother and my brothers are those who hear the word of God and do it’, which is ambiguous and does not necessarily exclude the family. In Luke 11:27–8, Jesus is addressed by a woman who says, ‘Blessed is the womb that bore you and the breasts that nursed you!’ and Jesus replies, ‘Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it!’ This could appear to endorse the Markan implication that Jesus’ mother is not important. However, in Luke 1:48, Mary has said, ‘Surely, from now on all generations will call me blessed’. So it is reasonable to surmise that, in 11:27–8, Mary is among those who are regarded as having heard the Word of God and obeyed it, especially as this is clear from 1:38: ‘Let it be to me according to your word’.
In John’s Gospel, the first mention of ‘the mother of Jesus’ (this gospel does not appear to name her) is at the wedding in Cana (2:1–11), where Mary indicates that the wine has run out. Belief in Mary as intercessor is associated with this passage, as she is considered to have taken on the role as advocate in persuading Christ to turn the water into wine. However, Jesus replies with the retort which may (or may not, as the verse is the subject of much debate) suggest that John is following Mark’s lead in distancing Jesus from Mary: ‘Woman, what concern is that to you and to me? My hour has not yet come’ (2:4). Some patristic theologians accepted the possibility that Jesus may have rebuked Mary at Cana because of her presumption in forcing him to act prematurely. Irenaeus (Against Heresies 3.16.7)8 commented on this despite otherwise seeing Mary as the New Eve, as did John Chrysostom (Homily on John 21).9
Mary’s faith was not always considered perfect amongst patristic exegetes, at least not at all points in Jesus’ life. This is suggested by, for example, Mary’s confusion when Jesus stays in the Temple in Luke 2:48 (Origen, Homily on Luke 20.4).10 The sword that would pierce her soul as prophesied by Zacharias in Luke 2:35 was interpreted as doubt and wavering at the cross by Origen (Homily on Luke 17.6–7)11 and Cyril of Alexandria (Commentary on John 12).12 Tertullian drew on Mark 3:31–5 and other gospel parallels to conclude that she shared the brothers’ lack of belief in Jesus’ mission (On the Flesh of Christ 7).13 This story was also cited by John Chrysostom (Homily on Matthew 44),14 who suggested that Mary was guilty of vanity for wanting to show her authority over her son. These developments in patristic thinking show an apparent contradiction between the honouring of Mary as the Virgin Mother of God and New Eve, on the one hand, and sharing the weakness and frailty of the female gender, on the other. This paradox reflects the growing asceticism and misogyny of the early Church as it developed through the second and third centuries. Yet, in the West after Tertullian, and later in the East, there was a growing exaltation of Mary which shied away from attributing weakness to her.15 Ambrose (On Virgins 2.2)16 saw her as a virgin in body and mind, a role model for Christians. He also concluded that she was the image of the Church (Exposition of Luke 2.7),17 an idea that became established. Augustine regarded Mary as an exception to the general rule that humans, even saints, sin (On Nature and Grace 42),18 thus paving the way for acceptance of the Immaculate Conception doctrine in the West many centuries later.
John’s Gospel shows the same reserve as Mark about the brothers (7:5). James is nowhere mentioned in John except implicitly as one of the brothers (Brown et al. 1978: 288–9). If the general consensus of New Testament scholarship is right that Mark is the first gospel and John the last, then there seems to have been a development from the whole family being downplayed to Mary being singled out and reinstituted as an important figure in the story of Jesus. There are, nevertheless, hints in John to earlier traditions of the influence of the mother and brothers in the ministry of Jesus. The brothers, like Mary at Cana, urge Jesus to declare his ministry widely to the public through his ‘works’, which can be assumed to be miraculous (John 7:2–13). Unlike Mark’s Gospel, where the family try to restrain Jesus, in John they actively promote the ministry but prematurely. Despite his reservations, Jesus complies with his family’s wishes on both occasions, responding to mother and brothers with miracles and teaching.
The birth and infancy narratives in Matthew and Luke are markedly divergent and, of course, historically unlikely: they are commonly regarded as the evangelists’ constructions which show how the Hebrew Scriptures are fulfilled in Jesus.19 Borg and Crossan (2008) refer to these stories as parables, overtures which contain the story of the whole gospel in miniature. They emerged later than the traditions of Jesus’ death and ministry. For Brown et al. (1978: 291), the earliest expression of Jesus’ status as Son of God can be found in Romans 1:3–4, and this was projected back into Jesus’ life and to its beginning. Yet the birth and infancy narratives are rich sources for Marian tradition. From the point of view of Catholic and Orthodox exegesis, the detail is not necessarily historically accurate (The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church; Burnett 2005; Witherup 2005), but what they convey about Mary is truth, nonetheless. Her active participation in aspects of Jesus’ life is represented appropriately, albeit in legendary form, by these traditions. The exception that is normally above critical historical questioning in ecclesiastical Catholic and Orthodox interpretations is that Mary conceived Jesus as a virgin.
Matthew’s Gospel includes the story of Jesus’ birth at Bethlehem, although the events are described from the perspective of Joseph rather than that of his betrothed, Mary, because of parallels with the story of Moses (Borg and Crossan 2008: 99–110). Joseph (never mentioned in Mark’s Gospel) is a descendant of David. Matthew’s genealogy (1:1–17) prepares the way for Mary as virgin and therefore unusual mother by including four predecessors who were unlikely maternal heroines of Israel’s history: Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and ‘the wife of Uriah’ (i.e. Bathsheba). Discovering the premature pregnancy, Joseph, ‘unwilling to expose her to public disgrace, planned to dismiss her quietly’, but he is persuaded by an angel in a dream to take her as his wife, as ‘the child conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit’ (1:18–25). On this is based the later tradition of Mary as Bride of the Holy Spirit while analogies between the beloved in the Song of Songs and Mary led her to being described as Bride of God and Bride of Christ (Graef and Thompson 2009: 45, 116).
There is a crucial passage in Matthew for later discussions about Mary’s continued virginity: ‘… he had no marital relations with her until she had borne a son’ (1:25). The Greek heōs, translated ‘until’, might imply that marital relations proceeded at that point, as was concluded in the fourth century by Helvidius (leading to his condemnation by Jerome, On the Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary 5–13);20 many centuries later, this became the normal understanding in Protestantism. However, the Orthodox and Catholic doctrines of Mary as Perpetual Virgin led this verse to be understood as implying the continuation of a relationship without normal marital relations. References to Jesus’ brothers and sisters in the New Testament therefore created a problem for later theologians who wanted to maintain that Mary remained a virgin throughout her life. In the third century, Origen stated that Mary had no further children after Jesus (Commentary on John 1.6).21 This question came to a head in the following century. Helvidius (whose work is only known through its refutation by Jerome) held to the plain reading that Mary did have other children after Jesus. Jerome mentioned that Helvidius cited Tertullian in support, in response to which Jerome questioned Tertullian’s orthodoxy.22
Jerome (On the Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary 13–18)23 then established the traditional Catholic position, the ‘Hieronyman’ named after him, by stating that the brothers and sisters were cousins who lived in a close extended family. The Catholic theologian Meier (1991: 318–32) builds a strong argument against the Hieronyman theory, demonstrating that it is not universally held among modern Catholic exegetes. The answer to the problem is different in the East. Also in the fourth century, Epiphanius (Panarion: Against the Antidicomarianites 78.7–10),24 drawing on Protevangelium 9.2 (Elliott 1993: 61),25 argued that the siblings were Joseph’s children from a previous marriage, the interpretation adopted by the Orthodox Churches.
The Matthean account continues in chapter 2 with the visit of the magi and the flight into Egypt away from Herod’s massacre of children under two years in the area around Bethlehem. Mary’s participation in these events has created a network of Marian sites commemorating the journey in Egypt, but her personal story is not investigated in the way that it is in Luke and apocryphal gospels later.
Mary emerges in the Gospel of Luke as the heroine of salvation history. Much of Marian iconography, liturgy, and festival calendar derive from the passages peculiar to this gospel, such as the Annunciation by the angel Gabriel (1:26–38). Here Luke draws on precedents in the Hebrew Scriptures in what Brown et al. (1978: 290) refer to as an ‘annunciation-of-birth pattern’. The translation of the Greek Chaire Maria, Kecharitōmenē in Luke 1:28 is crucial to denominational thinking about Mary.26 The Dominican theologian Nichols (2015: 7–9) argues that the Greek is stronger than the Latin Ave Maria, Gratia Plena, because chaire implies rejoicing, and this establishes a clear link to passages in the Hebrew Scriptures about the Daughter of Zion, understood as a prototype for Mary. Kecharitōmenē is translated by Nichols as ‘You who have already been transformed by grace’ (see also Naumann 2017: 186–7), which acts to support the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. However, centuries earlier and anticipating the views of the Reformers, Erasmus took ‘gratia plena’ in a different direction with a more modest translation, ‘favoured’ or ‘being in favour’ (Graef and Thompson 2009: 281), and in English-speaking Calvinism, a translation was ‘freely beloved’ denoting the unmerited bestowal of grace by God (Wright 1989: 164–5).27
Kuhn (2015: 92) points out that other words of Gabriel to Mary, ‘The Lord is with you’ and ‘For you have found favour with God’, imply that she has a key role in God’s plans for the covenant relationship, as with parallel figures in the Hebrew Scriptures. He adds that Mary’s confusion at this point followed by her acceptance of Gabriel’s message serves Luke’s rhetorical purpose, as his readers will identify with her (Kuhn 2015: 96). Also included in the Annunciation passage is the Fiat (‘let it be’) of Luke 1:38 in which Mary agrees to the vocation of being the mother of the Messiah; the belief that Mary had made a vow of virginity is not clear from the Lukan text, but was suggested by Gregory of Nyssa, Oration on the Nativity of Christ,28 and Augustine, On Holy Virginity 4,29 thus becoming influential in East and West.
The story of the Visitation of Mary to her kinswoman Elizabeth in Judaea (Luke 1:39–56) implicitly compares Mary to the Ark of the Covenant, the shrine of the presence of God in ancient Israel; she like the Ark, is the resting place of God, she causes rejoicing and wonder by her presence, and she rests in the Judean hills for three months (Exod. 40:34–8, 2 Sam. 6:9–15; see Mary, the Living Shrine). Elsewhere in the New Testament, the Ark of the Covenant is revealed in heaven in Revelation 11:19 immediately before the vision of the woman clothed with the sun, the mother of the one who is to ‘rule the nations with a rod of iron’, that is, Christ (compare Rev. 12:5 with 19:11–16). The woman clothed with the sun was originally understood as a symbol of the Church; the identification with Mary was quite late and can only be traced back to the fourth century in Epiphanius’ Panarion: Against the Antidicomarianites 78.11,30 although this interpretation became an obvious and now traditional one.
Luke’s emphasis is on Jesus dwelling amongst the poor and so, in Mary’s Magnificat (1:46–55), she describes herself as having the ‘lowliness’ of a ‘servant’ but will be raised up with the poor. She is the representative of the anawim of Israel, the vulnerable and powerless ones who look to God for help (Brown et al. 1978: 142–3). The Magnificat derives from the Song of Hannah (1 Sam. 2:1–10), who was barren but became the mother of the prophet Samuel. For this reason, the alternative reading in a few ancient Latin manuscripts that the Magnificat was uttered by Elizabeth and not Mary is understandable, as Elizabeth like Hannah was old in childbearing and gave birth to John the Baptist: Samuel anointed David and John baptized Jesus. However, the weight of ancient sources establishes Mary as the speaker. Therefore, Luke’s Mary has prophetic qualities according to Foskett (2002: 128–32), who points out that virginity and spiritual mediation were linked in the ancient world (Foskett 2002: 23–112). Croy and Connor (2011) suggest that Luke avoids explicit mention of Mary as ‘prophet’ because of associations between virginity and prophetesses in Greco-Roman cults such as the Pythian or Sybelline. For Kuhn (2015: 124, 133, 190), Mary is the peasant girl who comes to speaks like a prophet with an authoritative testimony, taking on the role as a spokesperson for the kingdom. Altogether, therefore, the prophetic vocation of Mary in Luke is well established.
These narratives, together with the birth of John the Baptist, the Nativity of Jesus (with shepherds visiting rather than magi), the Presentation of the infant Jesus in the Temple at Jerusalem, and Jesus staying in that temple aged twelve and causing anxiety to his mother and father comprise the first two chapters of Luke. Luke agrees with Matthew that Joseph is a descendant of David and that the virginal conception is through the Holy Spirit, but he expands on this point: ‘The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you’ (1:35). The birth of Jesus is, as in Matthew, at Bethlehem thus fulfilling Messianic prophecy, although Luke describes this differently: whereas in Matthew, the family move to Nazareth only after the flight to Egypt, in Luke, this is where they have originated, forced to stay temporarily in Bethlehem as there is a census and it is Joseph’s home town. As Joseph is the descendant of David in the gospel genealogies, and the conception is virginal, the question might be raised as to whether the patriarchal line is sufficient for Christ to be referred to as the seed of David. The growth of belief that Mary too had a lineage back to David is first hinted at by Ignatius of Antioch in Epistle to the Ephesians 1831 and then elaborated by Protevangelium 10 (Elliott 1993: 61) and Tertullian in On the Flesh of Christ 21,32 becoming traditional afterwards. However, it is not explicit in the New Testament unless one assumes that Joseph will have chosen a bride from within his own patriarchal line; in Luke, Mary’s kinswoman Elizabeth had an Aaronic lineage, thus bringing together the royal and priestly lines.
Luke states at two points that Mary ‘treasured and pondered all these words/things in her heart’ (combining 2:19 and 2:51). The acceptance by Mary of the divine mission to give birth to the Redeemer and to raise him, as well as to stand by him at the crucifixion, has led to much Mariological development. First, it inspired the second-century Christian apologists Justin Martyr (Dialogue with Trypho 100)33 and Irenaeus (Against Heresies 3.22.4)34 to formulate the teaching that Mary was a new Eve just as Christ was the new Adam in Paul’s letters. Through her actions, she undid the knot of sin that Eve tied in the Garden of Eden. In later tradition, Catholics regarded Mary’s participation in the events of Redemption as making her worthy of epithets such as Co-Redemptrix and Mediatrix (of All Graces) (see e.g. Reynolds 2012: 107–292 and Fastiggi’s first chapter (III.19) in this volume), although these have not been defined dogmatically.
The Second Vatican Council’s document on the Church, Lumen Gentium, developed an ecclesiological understanding of Mary as a member of the Church and its first disciple. Thus she is a prototype and image of the believing Church. Mary’s status as a role model for both men and women is not new (see Marialis Cultus 21 and chapter IV.25 by Stephen Bates in this volume), but the emphasis on Mary as first disciple is post-conciliar. Papal encyclicals on Mary after Vatican II stress it: ‘She is worthy of imitation because she was the first and the most perfect of Christ’s disciples’ (Marialis Cultus 35); ‘Thus in a sense Mary as Mother became the first “disciple” of her Son, the first to whom he seemed to say: “Follow me”, even before he addressed this call to the Apostles or to anyone else (cf. Jn. 1:43)’ (Redemptoris Mater 20).
In John’s Gospel, the mother of Jesus reappears once more after the wedding at Cana, at the crucifixion which is Jesus’ ‘hour’, a pivotal moment in the story of Mary. In John 19:25, ‘standing near the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas [or daughter or mother, the Greek is not clear], and Mary Magdalene’. Commentators are unclear whether this refers to two, three, or four women: to identify three is traditional, and so Clopas was regarded in later Christian tradition as Joseph’s brother (Eusebius, The History of the Church 3.11).35 This is a natural conclusion to be drawn from the unlikelihood of two Marys being sisters; they are better understood as sisters-in-law. Some modern exegetes (e.g. Brown 1994: 1014–15; Michaels 2010: 954) find four women in this passage.
The mother of Jesus and the beloved disciple are anonymous figures in John’s Gospel, and they come together at the cross. Jesus entrusts his mother to the beloved disciple, so that they enter a new relationship of mother and son and the beloved disciple takes her into his home. This led to traditions that John took Mary to Ephesus. It was also used in patristic arguments for Mary not having other children after Jesus as it was felt that surviving sons naturally would have looked after their mother, as in Origen (Commentary on John 1.6)36 and Jerome (On the Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary 15).37 Yet Michaels (2010: 957–8) suggests that it is not impossible that the original beloved disciple was actually a brother of Jesus; Tabor (2006: 186–7) thinks that it was James. Of course, the traditional identification of the beloved disciple is not a brother of Jesus but John the son of Zebedee, although modern scholars have posited another apostolic figure known as John the Elder (see e.g. Bauckham 2007).
The scene at the cross in John’s Gospel involving the mother of Jesus and the beloved disciple transcends the simple expedient of Jesus making provision for his mother. There have been many attempts to uncover the meaning behind these figures (discussed in e.g. Brown et al. 1978: 210–18; Bauckham 2007: 82–91). Nortjé-Meyer (2009: 127–9) summarizes scholarly conclusions regarding the symbolic significance of the ‘mother of Jesus’ in John: she is a new Eve; Mother Zion; Israel; Jewish Christianity; a prototype of faith and discipleship; the symbol of the Church; the family of faith at the cross.38 All of these bar Jewish Christianity, which is Bultmann’s (discredited) suggestion, have been influential in Christian tradition (except that the association of Mary with the Daughter of Zion would be more familiar in the Churches). Brown et al. (1978: 206–18) concluded that the only interpretation which can definitely be attributed to the writer of John’s Gospel is that the scene invites the reader into a new eschatological family relationship to Jesus. Lincoln (2005: 477) says of Mary at the cross in John that: ‘It appears that she represents all who are receptive to salvation from Jesus … who are now referred to the disciple who is the witness par excellence …’. In Catholicism, it is rather the other way round: the scene is more important than any other for establishing Mary as the ‘Mother of the Church’ (as declared by Pope Paul VI at Vatican II in 1964), because the beloved disciple signifies the believer.
Mary’s presence at the crucifixion is derived from John’s Gospel but, in the Western Churches at least, she is not thought to be present according to the synoptic gospels. This is based on the traditional Western belief that she is not the same person as ‘Mary the mother of James the younger and Joses’ in Mark 15:40, a witness to the crucifixion, burial, and empty tomb (see also 15:47 and 16:1).39 However, this assumption is far from universal. Regarding these two women as one and the same was another aspect of the Helvidian position, denounced by Jerome in On the Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary. Helvidius’ position is strengthened by the parallels between the names of the brothers in Mark 15:40 and 6:3 or Matthew 13:55 and 27:56. This has been revisited in modern scholarship (see e.g. Bauckham 2002: 253). Despite this, it has not been established in biblical criticism, although there are exceptions such as Gundry (1993: 977) and Michaels (2010: 955) who argue for it. Gundry suggests that ‘the younger’ refers to James as the younger brother of Jesus.
Brown et al. (1978: 70) reject the identification of Mary the mother of James and Joses with the mother of Jesus, asking why Mark would decline to refer to the mother of Jesus at the crucifixion and burial if it were known that she was present. However, while dismissing it, they also give us a possible reason for accepting it. In a footnote, they add: ‘Or is it possible that Mark chose to identify the mother of Jesus by her other sons (James and Joses) because Jesus has been identified as “Son of God” at 15.39?’ (1978: 70n131). Likewise Bauckham (2004: 13) is against the idea; later in his book, he provides an answer but without realizing it: ‘There is also evidence that Jesus’ brothers themselves were responsible for the downplaying of their relationship to the Lord’ (Bauckham 2004: 128). The authors of the letters of James and Jude, who are presumed to be the brothers of Jesus, refer to themselves as ‘servant of Jesus Christ’. Jude is the ‘brother of James’ but neither letter refers to the authors as ‘brothers of Jesus’ despite the fact that Paul himself uses this epithet to describe James (Gal. 1:19). So there are New Testament examples of relatives of Jesus not being referred to as such in deference to him.
Therefore, adding to these points the observation that Mark minimized the association of Jesus with his family, there is a rationale for understanding why Mary was referred to in Mark and Matthew as the mother of James and Joses/Joseph, the eldest brothers in the family, but not of Jesus. The conclusion that Mary the mother of Jesus is an onlooker at the crucifixion in all four gospels is therefore a sustainable one. Motives for rejecting this are often confessional: to remove any doubt about the Perpetual Virginity of Mary in the Catholic tradition in which Mary is not the mother of James and Joses, and to honour the plain reading of the text amongst Protestants. However, for the Orthodox, it is not so problematic: Mary is, after all, the stepmother of James and Joses in the Epiphanian interpretation. If the identification of Mary with Mary the mother of James and Joses were to be accepted, then the unanimity of the presence of Mary at the crucifixion suggests a pre-gospel tradition40 of Mary’s involvement in the events of the first Easter, at the cross and tomb.41
Narratives describing resurrection appearances of Jesus are omitted from the original and shorter version of Mark, but in Matthew, they are present: the women at the tomb see Jesus (28:9–10) and so do the disciples in the final passage (28:16–20). Descriptions of Mary the mother of Jesus witnessing the resurrection certainly occur in post-biblical literature (see e.g. Shoemaker 2016: 84–7). Yet, while a meeting between the risen Christ and his mother has been pictured in Catholic art and was important to various Catholic saints through history, it is not regarded in the West as being described in the gospels themselves. However, if the ‘other Mary’ of Matthew’s and Mark’s Gospels is identified as Mary the mother of Jesus,42 then it follows that the first resurrection appearance of Jesus in Matthew is to Mary his mother as well as to Mary Magdalene. She would have been among the first to see his risen body and to grasp his feet. The belief that, in this way, Matthew records the appearance of Jesus to Mary the Theotokos is accepted in some Orthodox traditions and depicted in icons. It was attested in the fourth century by Gregory of Nyssa in Oration on the Resurrection of Christ 243 and John Chrysostom in Homily on Matthew 88,44 then in the fourteenth century by Gregory Palamas (Homily for the Sunday of the Myrrhbearing Women).45 This reading of Matthew is not unanimous in the East. In The Life of the Virgin, attributed to Maximus the Confessor in the seventh century, the ‘other Mary’ seems to be identified with Mary the wife of Clopas (Shoemaker 2012: 117–18). Yet, nevertheless, The Life of the Virgin describes Mary the mother of Jesus as the leader of the myrrh-bearing women at the tomb and first witness of the resurrection (Shoemaker 2012: 119–20).
At the empty tomb, Luke has named the woman at the tomb simply as ‘Mary, the mother of James’ (24:10).46 The women in this gospel do not see the risen Jesus; this is the privilege of the disciples on the road to Emmaus (24:13–35), an episode which begins the final encounter between the risen Jesus and the disciples leading up to the Ascension. In John, despite the mother of Jesus’ presence at the cross, only Mary Magdalene among the women is named in the empty tomb and resurrection narrative of 20:1–18.
In Acts, Mary appears for a final time along with Jesus’ brothers, praying with the community between the Ascension and Pentecost (1:14). Thus Mary has been traditionally associated with these events, often pictured amongst the disciples at Pentecost. There is also mention of a ‘Mary, the mother of John whose other name was Mark’, whose house is used for communal prayer in Acts 12:12. While Mary was the one of the most common female names in first century Israel, perhaps applying to one in four women (Bauckham 2004: 43), the association of the name Mary with the motherhood of important apostles seems coincidental, to say the least. This might suggest a very early association of the name Mary with the Church as a community. There is the possibility that the New Testament contains the seeds of later descriptions of Mary as the mother figure and image of the Church, given that churches were symbolically identified as mothers in the New Testament period (1 Pet. 5:13; 2 John 1, 13).
In summary, the New Testament passages about Mary that give rise to doctrines, artistic depictions, and devotional references in East and West are derived from the Gospels of Matthew, Luke, and John, and the first chapter of Acts. The passages about Mary in the other gospels reverse the apparent tendency in the Gospel of Mark to diminish the importance of Mary as a member of the family of Jesus, although this downplaying of status continues for Jesus’ brothers, who were Jewish Christian leaders in the early decades of the Church. In addition, Mary came to be identified with the woman in the vision of Revelation 12, and there are also traditional associations of Mary with important motifs in the Hebrew Scriptures.
If Mark’s Gospel is the earliest, this might seem to discourage attempts to trace any emphasis on Mary back before the Gospels. However, an older pre-synoptic stratum of information about Mary at the crucifixion and burial of Jesus could be proposed if she is identified with Mary the mother of James and Joses/Joseph in Mark’s and Matthew’s Gospels. This identification was made in the early Church and it was retained in the Orthodox tradition. It suggests the possible existence of an early testimony to Mary as witness of the resurrection, despite this being regarded in the West as extra-biblical.
The maternal relationship of Mary to James and the other brothers of Jesus is stated in the gospels and Acts; yet the doctrine of Perpetual Virginity has led to it being overlooked as, in this doctrine, she was not their natural mother. The physical status of Mary as a ‘virgin’ is not important in the New Testament, where the emphasis is rather on the miraculous birth of Jesus and Mary’s assent to it, and yet virginity became her main defining characteristic. There would be an interesting shift in iconography if Mary’s motherhood of a whole family, including the sisters mentioned in Mark 6:3, took centre stage as opposed to her relationship with an only child.
The prominence of James in the early Church presents a second phase in the story of Mary: she is not just the mother of Jesus, but also of James the ‘first bishop of Jerusalem’ (albeit as a stepmother in the Orthodox tradition). We cannot posit what this second stage was like or how long it lasted, as it is not recorded in the New Testament beyond Acts 1:14. While their relationship is not elaborated in the New Testament, it is described in the seventh-century Life of the Virgin, where it is said that James took care of Mary after she returned from Ephesus to Jerusalem (Shoemaker 2012: 125).47 What we can conclude with some confidence is that Mary and the brothers of Jesus were remembered as a family unit in the pre-gospel tradition, one that participated in and contributed to the mission of Jesus and the very earliest Church.
Biblical quotes are from the New Revised Standard Version (Oxford University Press, 1995). Psalm references are given with the Vulgate/Septuagint numbering first and the Hebrew Masoretic/Protestant/NRSV second.