What They Are Saying About Mary?
I remember being taught at university that the Gospels went through three stages of development:
(1) the actual historical event of Jesus;
(2) the oral tradition; and
(3) the written record (in the latter third of the first century).
I remember taking some exception to the professor when she said that because of this drawn out process the Gospels could not be taken literally or at face value. My traditional training in the undergraduate level had exposed me to the Church’s condemnations against Modernism and one of their errors was a denial of the true historicity of the Gospels. While the various writings of the New Testament reflected the various theologies of their human authors, and the faith communities out of which they arose, it was my conviction that as God’s inspired Word, they could be trusted, particularly since the entire Catholic Christian faith depended upon a reliable depiction of the Savior. In regard to the Virgin Mary, much has been made of her emphasis or absence in various New Testament writings. However, I would suggest that we must look at the focus of the various documents, remember that the Gospels and the faith are primarily based on the life of Jesus, and trust that even on the periphery; the Church has always shown Mary affection and invoked her intercession.
Yes, there seems some pluralism in the Scriptures about Mary, but I would hesitate to find discrepancy or tension. Paul never calls her by name. Luke offers the most highly developed view of Mary. He sees her as a disciple— as the ideal believer. The revisionists sometimes seem a bit upset by his strong depiction of Mary. They would argue that “critically” we should not seek to harmonize the Gospels, as if each Gospel must be understood in isolation from the rest. I must admit that I do not wholly trust their motives. They are correct, though, that the Gospels each present, as the center of interest, the figure of Jesus and what God has done to save us in Jesus Christ.
Paul tells us bluntly that Jesus is born of a woman and so he is truly human, rooted in the race of Adam and Eve. Remember here the Jewish law— anyone is a Jew if born of a Jewish mother. He is bonded to us in sharing our common humanity. For his immediate purposes of evangelization, Paul is not directly concerned about Mary, per se.
The critics argue that our first Gospel, Mark, gives us a negative view of Mary, at least in the context of Christ’s ministry. They contend that Mary does not seem to understand her Son and she is not counted among his disciples. Chapter three seems to depict Mary as an outsider, and the verdict is given in an initial misunderstanding that Jesus is acting “beside himself”:
The Pharisees plot against him and the scribes think he is possessed by Satan. Jesus responds by offering a rhetorical question, “Who are my mother and my brothers?” He answers, “Whoever does the will of God is my brother, and sister, and mother.” in other words, who live it out. This would become very important for the self-understanding of the early Church communities— the natural family is contrasted to the eschatological family.
Those considering Mark apart from Luke would still allow that the blood family of Jesus could and largely would become disciples, members of the family of faith. However, and here is where I take exception to their interpretation regarding Mary, these critics claim that at this point in the ministry of Jesus, she and the accompanying brethren were not disciples. While these critics contend that each Gospel must be considered as distinct from other writings, they actually give preference to Mark and construe a teaching moment as a rebuke. Often relegating the infancy narratives and the early expressions of faith from Mary to the level of fancy, they contend from the apparent confusion of his family and the later anxiety of Mary in Mark’s Gospel over what awaits her Son that there was an overall lack of faith and that this was probably true of the real-life event. Given that the event is embarrassing, the episode is certainly accurate enough. Why? Because in light of the resurrection, it is argued, it would not be likely that such a story would be invented later on.
Let us turn now to Acts 1:14. Awaiting the Holy Spirit are the eleven apostles, the special women mentioned in Scripture, and Mary and his brethren. Here we find the nucleus of the Church. In light of Mark, the critics would ask, if Mary had never become a believer, is it likely that any positive picture of her would be painted among the saints? She was an honored member of the early Apostolic Church. When the early Jerusalem faith community would come together to celebrate the meal that commemorated the death and resurrection of Christ, Mary would be honored as the Mother of the hero. The critics contend that over time her role in the community would influence their perception of her earlier role in salvation history. The Gospel of Mark was a recording an earlier memory.
Again, I have reservations about such a view. First, while most biblical authorities believe that Mark is the first Gospel composed, and admittedly the language is crude and terminology fairly simplistic, there are still some authorities who claim Matthew as the earliest and that Mark is a shorter reworking of the material. Second, there is nothing in chapter three that spells out the exclusion of Mary and the brethren from the circle of disciples. Who is to say that he is not merely expanding his family and alluding to the fact that Mary is more kindred to him by faith than by blood? Might one also argue that by expanding the family, he is making Mary not only his Mother, but the Mother of all who believe in him? This seems just as likely as a rebuke for ignorance, and if one allows impute from the other Gospels and the traditions of faith, it even becomes more likely.
Notice the Scripture citation here; I have rendered it just as one professor did, excluding intervening material that was deemed non-topical. However, let us look at what was removed:
A house divided cannot stand. Yes, he was talking about the kingdom, but one might also see a reference to his own earthly house. The promised Messiah is from the House of David, and the Scriptures denote Joseph as of this royal line and no doubt so was Mary since she belonged to the same tribe. Was there really dissension between Jesus and the rest of his family or just confusion and worry? I would suggest the latter. Indeed, the scene shows just how much Jesus was loved by Mary and his various brethren, probably cousins really.
There is also more that was left out of the quote:
I am left wondering if we do not see something here of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit from certain exegetes and theologians? There is no hint from these critics that the Holy Spirit has inspired his Word and that he has purposely given us four Gospels, Acts, Revelation and assorted epistles to give us the complete picture of Jesus. If God’s hand is involved with it all, how can we make arguments against Mary’s perpetual faith role based upon skimpy evidence in one Gospel?
Matthew offers a similar text, and when told that his Mother and brothers are asking to speak to him, Jesus stretches out his hand toward his disciples and says, “Here are my mother and my brethren! For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother, and sister, and mother.” Again, there is no insult, no renunciation of his blood family. What we do see is that Jesus gives his disciples the same privileges and rights that he would give his Mother and brethren. His listeners have just as much right to his time and his words, perhaps even more so, given the brevity of mortal life and the urgency of the Gospel proclamation. What appears to be a negative context in Mark is removed. The contrast is not so hard. Matthew also includes infancy narratives, but the emphasis is upon Joseph, his royal line, the angelic reassurance to Joseph, the virginal conception of Jesus, and Joseph’s role as guardian to the Holy Family. After the three wise men depart, Joseph takes his family into Egypt, safe from the evil grasp of Herod.
Luke also offers us the same scene:
The apparent contrast between those inside the family and those outside is mostly gone, and I would contend this simply clarifies what might have been misconstrued in older texts. If we argue that the text is merely cleaned up out of deference to Mary, rewriting the real historical record, then we would have to pit one Gospel against another as if the Scriptures could war with themselves. Seen as a whole, they compliment one another and give us the testimony that God has insured by his guiding Holy Spirit. It is fairly clear in Luke that Jesus’ Mother and brethren meet the criteria of discipleship. Mary’s Annunciation and her subsequent Magnificat demonstrate that she is the Woman of Faith. Mary is blessed by Jesus for hearing the Word of God and keeping it. Greater and prior to her physical motherhood, she was a spiritual Mother to our Lord. She had been prepared by God for this noble purpose. Her chief source of holiness is not merely her physical motherhood, but her hearing the Word and keeping it— literally allowing the Word to become the living fruit of her womb. Her physical motherhood is the singular realization and full expression of her spiritual motherhood in faith. In that sense, a distinction is made between Mary and other women.
Acts 1:14 gives us an important post-resurrection scene, “All these with one accord devoted themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.” Mary is clearly a member of the early Church and here she is in common prayer with them. The revisionist scholars cannot accept that such might have been Mary’s status all along, and so they contend that this situation is retrojected into the infancy narrative. There is something cynical about this view. They claim this is why Mary gets the Annunciation scene and the interaction with angels. They reject the historicity of these important events. Is this approach not a form of atheism? They will not stop here in bankrupting the New Testament either. These critics admit that there is a post-resurrection kerygma where she gives herself to it, her “Fiat”! But, they claim is inserted to an earlier stage of the story, the conception of the Christ. They are hesitant to accept that she could have consistently been giving her very life to the proclamation of the Gospel. This means that they have to try to negate the Visitation in Luke, too. When she visits Elizabeth, she is shown to be literally proclaiming the Good News and she is declared blessed for her faith by kinswoman. Mary breaks into praise with her Magnificat. This Jewish-Christian hymn makes Mary a symbol in herself for others. We are given Mary as a prophet, announcing the Good News. It appears to the reader, and it was certainly the intent of the author, that Mary be shown as a disciple from the beginning to the end. Critics would contend there is retrogressing. I would want to take the texts at face value, as pertaining to actual events. Mary does indeed symbolize the person of faith— those who hear the Good News and keep it.
John gives us two significant scenes (neither where Mary is named) but she is identified as “the mother”. There is the Cana scene and here again the critics (should we call them Mary-bashers?) assert that there is evidence of an imperfect faith, less than discipleship. What many of us see is the intercessory role of Mary. Jesus seems sharp with her, although this is in part because of the Semitic language. Nevertheless, he turns water into wine at her behest. That is pretty impressive. At the cross she is clearly the woman of faith, present at the foundations of the Church with the disciple whom he loved. In contradiction, revisionists make much of the fact that while John places Mary as at the heart of the early Christian community, this emphasis is not seen in the Synoptic Gospels and they would contend that the question of her actual presence cannot be answered.
The Book of Revelation presents us with the woman giving birth to the Messiah and being attacked by a dragon. She ultimately stands triumphant. This originally signified the Cross, we are told.
Many contemporary exegetes and theologians insist that the canon was finally forced— now set side by side— into a conflated image, with one book deepening the other. The theological mind began to make a composite— harmonizing— for the trajectory of later centuries. Emphasis is placed upon Mary’s virginity, then the conception, then at birth and then even afterwards. She is also emphasized as the Mother of Jesus and all believers. A comparison is made with Eve. Eve was the cohort in sinning with the first Adam; she is the cohort in salvation with Christ, the new Adam.
Ultimately, the revisionists ask, what can we know historically? They answer, that there was a Mary of Nazareth and that there are four things minimally assured:
1. Jewish woman of first century (real) Miriam;
2. Mother of Jesus;
3. At least at start of his ministry she did not understand what Jesus was about (see the questioning in Luke at the scene where Mary and Joseph find Jesus in the Temple); and
4. Believer in Post-Easter Community.
I would hesitate to give full credence to the third point. It may be that Mary did not know the details of what Jesus would do, but to say she knew nothing about his role and work would deny her own role as the perpetual woman of faith and disciple of her Son. Critics contend that what we see here fits the Vatican II terminology about Mary’s life as a journey of faith. But it could have been a different journey than the one they envision. Certain revisionists seek to deny the historicity of a whole list of mysteries, the sinlessness of Mary, her Annunciation, her perpetual virginity, and her past and present cooperation with her Son in his redemptive work. The same kind of minimalism is often used regarding Jesus as well, going so far as to theoretically posit two sons—the historical Jesus (real and human) and the Christ of faith (mythical and divine).
There are certain probabilities we can assert. Short in stature, she also probably had dark hair and eyes. No doubt, like other such women, she was centered on the home. It was a woman’s duty to raise and bear children. (Revisionists claiming that she and Joseph had other children contradict Church teaching.) She would certainly have had religious duties in the home (candles, prayers, teaching, etc.). Women of her time were not encouraged to study the Torah and such. Her chores would have included washing, cleaning, baking bread, fetching water, and so forth.
Regarding the timing of the Annunciation scene, we should remember that girls were not married until about 12 or 13 years old. A girl was betrothed at the onslaught of menstruation. Luke pictures her as intelligent (she thinks seriously about things) and is free. He says that “she pondered it,” the early events he relates. She comes across as a reflective woman.
Mary becomes physically pregnant and gives birth to Jesus. We can conclude that she no doubt nurtured and raised Jesus. Fr. Edward Schillebeeckx wrote a book entitled, Mary, Mother of the Redemption and talks about the impression of love from both of Jesus’ parents. There was probably outreach to the poor in their village. They raised and exposed him to experience certain values. His first word was probably some variation of mamma. He was probably thinking of her when he told the parable of a woman searching for a lost coin. Good things happened in their home. Taking after Joseph, he probably supported her with carpentry. The impression is given that she is a widow, sometime after he was 12 years old. Brethren are mentioned, but there is nothing more about Joseph. It seems he must have died. When he began his public ministry, Jesus seems to abandon her, although this word from revisionists may be too loaded with negative meaning in this context. Certainly, she forfeits any financial support that might have come through him.
The political situation is tense. Mary probably had fears for him (and his New Way over the Torah). Revisionists sometimes claim that she was probably not at the Cross, but that she would at least come to know how he was executed as a common criminal. They would assert that she came to believe and to join the community of disciples. These critics contend that in the end, we get the picture of a woman with her own history and identity, herself having to grow in wisdom, age and grace.
I would take exception with much of this. I believe she was at the Cross and that her role as the Woman of Faith and the Immaculate Conception would have insured a constancy of faith in her Son. While she aged, she was always full of grace. I would also argue for a supernatural wisdom that would be hers as a gift to the New Eve; although as a simple woman she might not be privy to all the practical elements of divine providence. Her mother’s heart would seek to protect and care for her Son. I cannot acknowledge as authentic the whittled-away Mary that some critics would give us.
ANAWIM – This refers to the faithful remnant waiting for God. Mary was one of these. On the surface, hers was a very ordinary life. Except for the Visitation, she is not pictured in terms of ministry. Hers is a quiet, pondering, and prayerful presence.
And yet, her ordinary life was extraordinary in the Son that she gave to the world. He may have received from her something of his natural friendliness to women, seeing their own dignity despite the stereotypes of the law. Mary was a real woman and the disciple par excellence. She becomes the model of what it means to be a disciple of God— a believer— a woman of faith.
(1) the actual historical event of Jesus;
(2) the oral tradition; and
(3) the written record (in the latter third of the first century).
I remember taking some exception to the professor when she said that because of this drawn out process the Gospels could not be taken literally or at face value. My traditional training in the undergraduate level had exposed me to the Church’s condemnations against Modernism and one of their errors was a denial of the true historicity of the Gospels. While the various writings of the New Testament reflected the various theologies of their human authors, and the faith communities out of which they arose, it was my conviction that as God’s inspired Word, they could be trusted, particularly since the entire Catholic Christian faith depended upon a reliable depiction of the Savior. In regard to the Virgin Mary, much has been made of her emphasis or absence in various New Testament writings. However, I would suggest that we must look at the focus of the various documents, remember that the Gospels and the faith are primarily based on the life of Jesus, and trust that even on the periphery; the Church has always shown Mary affection and invoked her intercession.
Yes, there seems some pluralism in the Scriptures about Mary, but I would hesitate to find discrepancy or tension. Paul never calls her by name. Luke offers the most highly developed view of Mary. He sees her as a disciple— as the ideal believer. The revisionists sometimes seem a bit upset by his strong depiction of Mary. They would argue that “critically” we should not seek to harmonize the Gospels, as if each Gospel must be understood in isolation from the rest. I must admit that I do not wholly trust their motives. They are correct, though, that the Gospels each present, as the center of interest, the figure of Jesus and what God has done to save us in Jesus Christ.
Paul tells us bluntly that Jesus is born of a woman and so he is truly human, rooted in the race of Adam and Eve. Remember here the Jewish law— anyone is a Jew if born of a Jewish mother. He is bonded to us in sharing our common humanity. For his immediate purposes of evangelization, Paul is not directly concerned about Mary, per se.
The critics argue that our first Gospel, Mark, gives us a negative view of Mary, at least in the context of Christ’s ministry. They contend that Mary does not seem to understand her Son and she is not counted among his disciples. Chapter three seems to depict Mary as an outsider, and the verdict is given in an initial misunderstanding that Jesus is acting “beside himself”:
Then he went home; and the crowd came together again, so that they could not even eat. And when his friends heard it, they went out to seize him, for they said, “He is beside himself.” And the scribes who came down from Jerusalem said, “He is possessed by Beelzebul, and by the prince of demons he casts out the demons.” . . . And his mother and his brethren came; and standing outside they sent to him and called him. And a crowd was sitting about him; and they said to him, “Your mother and your brethren [and sisters] are outside, asking for you.” And he replied, “Who are my mother and my brethren?” And looking around on those who sat about him, he said, “Here are my mother and my brethren! Whoever does the will of God is my brother, and sister, and mother.” (Mark 3:20-22; 31-35)
The Pharisees plot against him and the scribes think he is possessed by Satan. Jesus responds by offering a rhetorical question, “Who are my mother and my brothers?” He answers, “Whoever does the will of God is my brother, and sister, and mother.” in other words, who live it out. This would become very important for the self-understanding of the early Church communities— the natural family is contrasted to the eschatological family.
Those considering Mark apart from Luke would still allow that the blood family of Jesus could and largely would become disciples, members of the family of faith. However, and here is where I take exception to their interpretation regarding Mary, these critics claim that at this point in the ministry of Jesus, she and the accompanying brethren were not disciples. While these critics contend that each Gospel must be considered as distinct from other writings, they actually give preference to Mark and construe a teaching moment as a rebuke. Often relegating the infancy narratives and the early expressions of faith from Mary to the level of fancy, they contend from the apparent confusion of his family and the later anxiety of Mary in Mark’s Gospel over what awaits her Son that there was an overall lack of faith and that this was probably true of the real-life event. Given that the event is embarrassing, the episode is certainly accurate enough. Why? Because in light of the resurrection, it is argued, it would not be likely that such a story would be invented later on.
Let us turn now to Acts 1:14. Awaiting the Holy Spirit are the eleven apostles, the special women mentioned in Scripture, and Mary and his brethren. Here we find the nucleus of the Church. In light of Mark, the critics would ask, if Mary had never become a believer, is it likely that any positive picture of her would be painted among the saints? She was an honored member of the early Apostolic Church. When the early Jerusalem faith community would come together to celebrate the meal that commemorated the death and resurrection of Christ, Mary would be honored as the Mother of the hero. The critics contend that over time her role in the community would influence their perception of her earlier role in salvation history. The Gospel of Mark was a recording an earlier memory.
Again, I have reservations about such a view. First, while most biblical authorities believe that Mark is the first Gospel composed, and admittedly the language is crude and terminology fairly simplistic, there are still some authorities who claim Matthew as the earliest and that Mark is a shorter reworking of the material. Second, there is nothing in chapter three that spells out the exclusion of Mary and the brethren from the circle of disciples. Who is to say that he is not merely expanding his family and alluding to the fact that Mary is more kindred to him by faith than by blood? Might one also argue that by expanding the family, he is making Mary not only his Mother, but the Mother of all who believe in him? This seems just as likely as a rebuke for ignorance, and if one allows impute from the other Gospels and the traditions of faith, it even becomes more likely.
Notice the Scripture citation here; I have rendered it just as one professor did, excluding intervening material that was deemed non-topical. However, let us look at what was removed:
And he called them to him, and said to them in parables, “”How can Satan cast out Satan? If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. And if a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand. And if Satan has risen up against himself and is divided, he cannot stand, but is coming to an end. But no one can enter a strong man’s house and plunder his goods; unless he first binds the strong man; then indeed he may plunder his house.” (Mark 3:23-27)
A house divided cannot stand. Yes, he was talking about the kingdom, but one might also see a reference to his own earthly house. The promised Messiah is from the House of David, and the Scriptures denote Joseph as of this royal line and no doubt so was Mary since she belonged to the same tribe. Was there really dissension between Jesus and the rest of his family or just confusion and worry? I would suggest the latter. Indeed, the scene shows just how much Jesus was loved by Mary and his various brethren, probably cousins really.
There is also more that was left out of the quote:
“Truly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter; but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of a eternal sin” – for they had said, “He has an unclean spirit.” (Matt. 12:46-50)
I am left wondering if we do not see something here of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit from certain exegetes and theologians? There is no hint from these critics that the Holy Spirit has inspired his Word and that he has purposely given us four Gospels, Acts, Revelation and assorted epistles to give us the complete picture of Jesus. If God’s hand is involved with it all, how can we make arguments against Mary’s perpetual faith role based upon skimpy evidence in one Gospel?
Matthew offers a similar text, and when told that his Mother and brothers are asking to speak to him, Jesus stretches out his hand toward his disciples and says, “Here are my mother and my brethren! For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother, and sister, and mother.” Again, there is no insult, no renunciation of his blood family. What we do see is that Jesus gives his disciples the same privileges and rights that he would give his Mother and brethren. His listeners have just as much right to his time and his words, perhaps even more so, given the brevity of mortal life and the urgency of the Gospel proclamation. What appears to be a negative context in Mark is removed. The contrast is not so hard. Matthew also includes infancy narratives, but the emphasis is upon Joseph, his royal line, the angelic reassurance to Joseph, the virginal conception of Jesus, and Joseph’s role as guardian to the Holy Family. After the three wise men depart, Joseph takes his family into Egypt, safe from the evil grasp of Herod.
Luke also offers us the same scene:
Then his mother and his brethren came to him, but they could not reach him for the crowd. And he was told, “Your mother and your brethren are standing outside, desiring to see you.” But he said to them, “My mother and my brethren are those who hear the word of God and do it.” (Luke 8:19-21)
The apparent contrast between those inside the family and those outside is mostly gone, and I would contend this simply clarifies what might have been misconstrued in older texts. If we argue that the text is merely cleaned up out of deference to Mary, rewriting the real historical record, then we would have to pit one Gospel against another as if the Scriptures could war with themselves. Seen as a whole, they compliment one another and give us the testimony that God has insured by his guiding Holy Spirit. It is fairly clear in Luke that Jesus’ Mother and brethren meet the criteria of discipleship. Mary’s Annunciation and her subsequent Magnificat demonstrate that she is the Woman of Faith. Mary is blessed by Jesus for hearing the Word of God and keeping it. Greater and prior to her physical motherhood, she was a spiritual Mother to our Lord. She had been prepared by God for this noble purpose. Her chief source of holiness is not merely her physical motherhood, but her hearing the Word and keeping it— literally allowing the Word to become the living fruit of her womb. Her physical motherhood is the singular realization and full expression of her spiritual motherhood in faith. In that sense, a distinction is made between Mary and other women.
Acts 1:14 gives us an important post-resurrection scene, “All these with one accord devoted themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.” Mary is clearly a member of the early Church and here she is in common prayer with them. The revisionist scholars cannot accept that such might have been Mary’s status all along, and so they contend that this situation is retrojected into the infancy narrative. There is something cynical about this view. They claim this is why Mary gets the Annunciation scene and the interaction with angels. They reject the historicity of these important events. Is this approach not a form of atheism? They will not stop here in bankrupting the New Testament either. These critics admit that there is a post-resurrection kerygma where she gives herself to it, her “Fiat”! But, they claim is inserted to an earlier stage of the story, the conception of the Christ. They are hesitant to accept that she could have consistently been giving her very life to the proclamation of the Gospel. This means that they have to try to negate the Visitation in Luke, too. When she visits Elizabeth, she is shown to be literally proclaiming the Good News and she is declared blessed for her faith by kinswoman. Mary breaks into praise with her Magnificat. This Jewish-Christian hymn makes Mary a symbol in herself for others. We are given Mary as a prophet, announcing the Good News. It appears to the reader, and it was certainly the intent of the author, that Mary be shown as a disciple from the beginning to the end. Critics would contend there is retrogressing. I would want to take the texts at face value, as pertaining to actual events. Mary does indeed symbolize the person of faith— those who hear the Good News and keep it.
John gives us two significant scenes (neither where Mary is named) but she is identified as “the mother”. There is the Cana scene and here again the critics (should we call them Mary-bashers?) assert that there is evidence of an imperfect faith, less than discipleship. What many of us see is the intercessory role of Mary. Jesus seems sharp with her, although this is in part because of the Semitic language. Nevertheless, he turns water into wine at her behest. That is pretty impressive. At the cross she is clearly the woman of faith, present at the foundations of the Church with the disciple whom he loved. In contradiction, revisionists make much of the fact that while John places Mary as at the heart of the early Christian community, this emphasis is not seen in the Synoptic Gospels and they would contend that the question of her actual presence cannot be answered.
The Book of Revelation presents us with the woman giving birth to the Messiah and being attacked by a dragon. She ultimately stands triumphant. This originally signified the Cross, we are told.
Many contemporary exegetes and theologians insist that the canon was finally forced— now set side by side— into a conflated image, with one book deepening the other. The theological mind began to make a composite— harmonizing— for the trajectory of later centuries. Emphasis is placed upon Mary’s virginity, then the conception, then at birth and then even afterwards. She is also emphasized as the Mother of Jesus and all believers. A comparison is made with Eve. Eve was the cohort in sinning with the first Adam; she is the cohort in salvation with Christ, the new Adam.
Ultimately, the revisionists ask, what can we know historically? They answer, that there was a Mary of Nazareth and that there are four things minimally assured:
1. Jewish woman of first century (real) Miriam;
2. Mother of Jesus;
3. At least at start of his ministry she did not understand what Jesus was about (see the questioning in Luke at the scene where Mary and Joseph find Jesus in the Temple); and
4. Believer in Post-Easter Community.
I would hesitate to give full credence to the third point. It may be that Mary did not know the details of what Jesus would do, but to say she knew nothing about his role and work would deny her own role as the perpetual woman of faith and disciple of her Son. Critics contend that what we see here fits the Vatican II terminology about Mary’s life as a journey of faith. But it could have been a different journey than the one they envision. Certain revisionists seek to deny the historicity of a whole list of mysteries, the sinlessness of Mary, her Annunciation, her perpetual virginity, and her past and present cooperation with her Son in his redemptive work. The same kind of minimalism is often used regarding Jesus as well, going so far as to theoretically posit two sons—the historical Jesus (real and human) and the Christ of faith (mythical and divine).
There are certain probabilities we can assert. Short in stature, she also probably had dark hair and eyes. No doubt, like other such women, she was centered on the home. It was a woman’s duty to raise and bear children. (Revisionists claiming that she and Joseph had other children contradict Church teaching.) She would certainly have had religious duties in the home (candles, prayers, teaching, etc.). Women of her time were not encouraged to study the Torah and such. Her chores would have included washing, cleaning, baking bread, fetching water, and so forth.
Regarding the timing of the Annunciation scene, we should remember that girls were not married until about 12 or 13 years old. A girl was betrothed at the onslaught of menstruation. Luke pictures her as intelligent (she thinks seriously about things) and is free. He says that “she pondered it,” the early events he relates. She comes across as a reflective woman.
Mary becomes physically pregnant and gives birth to Jesus. We can conclude that she no doubt nurtured and raised Jesus. Fr. Edward Schillebeeckx wrote a book entitled, Mary, Mother of the Redemption and talks about the impression of love from both of Jesus’ parents. There was probably outreach to the poor in their village. They raised and exposed him to experience certain values. His first word was probably some variation of mamma. He was probably thinking of her when he told the parable of a woman searching for a lost coin. Good things happened in their home. Taking after Joseph, he probably supported her with carpentry. The impression is given that she is a widow, sometime after he was 12 years old. Brethren are mentioned, but there is nothing more about Joseph. It seems he must have died. When he began his public ministry, Jesus seems to abandon her, although this word from revisionists may be too loaded with negative meaning in this context. Certainly, she forfeits any financial support that might have come through him.
The political situation is tense. Mary probably had fears for him (and his New Way over the Torah). Revisionists sometimes claim that she was probably not at the Cross, but that she would at least come to know how he was executed as a common criminal. They would assert that she came to believe and to join the community of disciples. These critics contend that in the end, we get the picture of a woman with her own history and identity, herself having to grow in wisdom, age and grace.
I would take exception with much of this. I believe she was at the Cross and that her role as the Woman of Faith and the Immaculate Conception would have insured a constancy of faith in her Son. While she aged, she was always full of grace. I would also argue for a supernatural wisdom that would be hers as a gift to the New Eve; although as a simple woman she might not be privy to all the practical elements of divine providence. Her mother’s heart would seek to protect and care for her Son. I cannot acknowledge as authentic the whittled-away Mary that some critics would give us.
ANAWIM – This refers to the faithful remnant waiting for God. Mary was one of these. On the surface, hers was a very ordinary life. Except for the Visitation, she is not pictured in terms of ministry. Hers is a quiet, pondering, and prayerful presence.
And yet, her ordinary life was extraordinary in the Son that she gave to the world. He may have received from her something of his natural friendliness to women, seeing their own dignity despite the stereotypes of the law. Mary was a real woman and the disciple par excellence. She becomes the model of what it means to be a disciple of God— a believer— a woman of faith.
posted by Father Joe Jenkins | 2:11 PM
|
0 comments
