Mary in the Gospel of Mark: Part II

Mary in the Gospel of Mark

Mark’s Gospel, as mentioned in the last issue of The Queen, contains only two references to Mary: 3:31-35 and 6:3.

In the previous installment, 6:3 was briefly examined to discover if the out-of- the-ordinary appellation of Jesus as “son of Mary” was an implicit proclamation of the virginal conception. While firmly upholding its historical truth, it was concluded that Mark’s expression in 6:3 is not in itself a scriptural basis for the dogma.

Before proceeding to a study of Mark 3:31-35, there is one other question raised by 6:3. The text explicitly refers to “brothers and sisters” of Jesus: Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mar y and brother of James and ]oses and Judas and Simon; and are not his sisters here with us? Mark contains another mention of the “brothers of Jesus” in 3:31. How can these clear references to other children of Mary be reconciled? How does this reconcile with the Church’s unmistakable teaching on the perpetual virginity of Our Lady? Furthermore, how can it be true that Mary remained a virgin after the miraculous conception of Jesus?

References to Brothers of Jesus Analyzed

The question is a serious one for not only Mark but every evangelist mentions the brothers of Jesus; Matthew and Mark refer also to his sisters. Matthew 13:56 states; And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And are not all his sisters with us? Luke 8:19 and Matthew 12:46 speak of his mother and his brothers. John refers to the brothers of Jesus in 2:12; 7:3, 5, 10. The Acts of the Apostles (1:14) tells us that in the Upper Room together with the apostles were Mary, the mother of Jesus, and . . . his brothers. Paul also refers to the brothers of the Lord in 1 Cor 9:5 and in Gal 1:19 he calls James the Lord’s brother.

Added to these texts are two others which some say at least imply that Mary should not be called “ever-virgin.” First, Luke tells us in the nativity narrative that Mary “gave birth to her first-born son” (2:7) which would, some state, insinuate that she had other children.

Second, Matthew narrates that Joseph “knew her not until she had borne a son” (1:25); in the context, to know means sexual relations.

Is the Perpetual Virginity of Mary Even An Important Topic?

Matthew would, therefore, so the objection goes, be stating that Joseph and Mary lived virginally only until the birth of Christ.
Before considering the teachings of Mark and other New Testament authors about the brothers and sisters of Jesus, there is a fundamental point which must be raised. Is the perpetual virginity of Mary an important topic?  “Why even bother to discuss the issue?” is the more usual response. Some even ask; “Would it really make any difference to our faith if Catholics today would no longer believe in the ever-virgin Mary?”

The answer is a clear Yes, but not primarily for reasons dealing directly with Christology or Mariology.  The dogma is not essential for the incarnation. Mary would still be the all-holy Mother of God even if she had children by Joseph. This truth does qualify our understanding of Jesus and Mary;  its fundamental importance involves the role of the Church in scriptural interpretation. There lies the radical significance of any discussion about the perpetual virginity of Mary.

When we examine this point, we are facing the thickest wall dividing Catholic from Protestant; for we are ultimately considering the norms by which the word of God is to be interpreted.

Perpetual Virginity: Not a Direct Concern in Mark’s Gospel

In this installment, we will briefly show that Mark makes no clear statement on the issue of Mary’s perpetual virginity. It is not a direct concern of his Gospel. We will also respond to the two objections mentioned above from Luke’s and Matthew’s Gospel about the ever-virgin Mary. We can then show, in the next issue of The Queen, why the Catholic and Orthodox Churches firmly believe that Mary the Semper Virgo is a truth rooted in the word of God.

Mark and other New Testament authors, as quoted above, refer to the brothers of Jesus.

Is the inspired word of God thereby telling us that Mary had children by Joseph after her virginal conception of Jesus?

Brother Does Not Necessarily Mean . . .

In the biblical languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek) the term for brother does not necessarily mean blood-brother. It can just as easily mean a relative, a kinsman, as any scriptural concordance will demonstrate. (cf. Gen. 13:8; 14:14, etc.). The eminent scripture scholar, Joseph Fitzmyer, quotes an ancient Aramaic letter which bears the opening salutation; “To my son from your brother,” as a father writes to his son who is away on a caravan. (Luke I-IX, Doubleday, 1981, p. 724).

To state that the New Testament Greek term for brother means only a blood-brother is evidently erroneous. It is possible that it may signify a relative, even a distant one or someone related other than by blood. For example, Paul, referring to his fellow Jews writes to the Romans (9:3); “I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen by race”.  In Mt 5:22- 24, the evangelist is indicating a wide range of relationships when he proclaims the words of Jesus; “Everyone who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother shall be liable to the council . . . be reconciled in your brother”.  The precise relation of the “brothers of Jesus” to the Lord is not, therefore, unquestionably designated in Mark or in the other New Testament authors mentioned above.

. . . Blood-Brother

Some may say that Mark does mean blood-brothers for the “brothers” are mentioned twice with Mary. And, therefore, in what could be termed a “family context.” But this is hardly a proof that these “brothers” are children of Mary. Especially taking into account biblical usage, could they not just as well be some close relatives within the extended family of which Mary and her son are members? It is also often brought out that since Mark and Matthew actually name the “brothers” – James, Joses, Judas and Simon – they should be considered the offspring of Mary and Joseph. But why does the fact of naming these “brothers” signify that they are, therefore, blood-brothers of Jesus? The conclusion is illogical.

Moreover, James (the Little) and Joses are mentioned by Mark as sons of a Mary who is among the women standing at a distance from the cross. (read 15:40,47; 16:1). The most critical scholars would say that it is quite inconceivable that Mark would knowingly refer to the mother of the crucified Jesus not as “his mother” (an expression found in 3:31) but as the mother of a James and Joses. It therefore appears doubtful – to say the least – that the James and Joses mentioned in the crucifixion scene of Mark are blood-brothers of Jesus. Presuming that they are the same men cited in 6:3 as “brothers” of Jesus, can we not conclude that in that text also, Mark is not referring to blood-brothers?

What is their relationship to Jesus? Jerome says they are cousins, some Eastern Fathers of the Church call them children of Joseph by a former marriage, others guess that they are sons of Joseph’s brother-in- law. The precise relationship cannot be concluded with any certitude.

What Does the Term . . .

The one point which is certain is that they are not necessarily designated by the New Testament as blood-brothers of Jesus. It can just as well be concluded – even on the basis of the scriptural evidence taken in isolation – that they are relatives in the extended family to which Jesus belonged.

Although dealing more precisely with the Mariology of Matthew, the expression that Joseph did not know Mary until the birth of Jesus is also no proof that Mary and Joseph did not live virginally after the nativity. The verse in Matthew mentioned above (1:25) tells us nothing about marital relations after the birth of Jesus. In the scriptural languages, until often has no implication whatsoever about what occurred after the circumstances of the until were accomplished. In this text Matthew is neither denying nor affirming the perpetual virginity of Mary.

. . . First-Born Imply?

Finally, Luke’s statement that Mary gave birth to her first-born son (2:27) cannot be used as an argument that Mary had other children beside Jesus. The term first- born is important because of the privileges and the status given the child in the Mosaic Law. (cf. Exod. 13:2; Num. 3:12-13, etc.). Luke is telling us that Mary had no child before giving birth to Jesus. Scholars often cite an inscription dating from about 5 B. C. which notes that a certain Jewish woman died giving birth to her first-born.  It is evident, therefore, that Luke’s use of the technical term first-born does not imply Mary had other children.

Mark’s Gospel cannot be used either to support or deny the perpetual virginity of Mary. As will be seen in the next installment (Part III) in The Queen, it is scripture in full context,  i.e. as authoritatively lived, prayed and taught by the Church which gives us the assurance that Our Lady is the Ever-Virgin Mother of God.

(To be Continued)