** Copyright Theology Today 1999 **
My two-and-a-half-year-old nephew quickly spotted a flaw in the large
creche outside our church-no donkey! Checking with the artist who had made the
figures revealed that he was right.
We were missing a beast. Yet she and most of the congregation had been
walking by the creche for several weeks and never noticed. Would that have
happened if Mary had been omitted? Surely not at Christmas. Yet for
much of the year, she is missing. Only in the Fourth Gospel does she play a
positive role in Jesus' public life (2:1-12). Only there is she among the
women who witness his death (19:25-27). Otherwise, Mary only appears in
the Synoptic Gospels in episodes where Jesus' natural family is juxtaposed
with the new family of believers (Mark 3:21, 31-35; Matt 12:46-50; Luke
8:19-21; 11:27-28) or where Jesus' human origins are an obstacle to faith
(Mark 6:1-6a; Matt 13:53-58; John 6:42). So it is easy to conclude that Mary's presence in the story is primarily that. to represent the human
origins of Jesus Messiah. For St. Paul, "born of woman" and "born under the
Law" reflect the human conditions into which Jesus came, but the new realities
of faith and life in the Spirit make believers children of God and descendants
of Abraham regardless of their human origins (Gal 4:1-7).
Even in the infancy narratives of Matthew and Luke, historical information
about the mother of Jesus is quite thin.' The stories in which she figures
seek to make a christological point. Jesus is Son of God, sent to bring
salvation. Even the so-called virgin birth, or more properly virginal conception, underscores the special relationship between Jesus
and God. Any special dignity possessed by Mary results from her
relationship to Jesus.2 Contemporary studies often move beyond the ordinary
exegetical debates by turning to different methodologies. Seeking to claim Mary as heroine for oppressed women, Jane Schaberg revives an ancient
slur that Mary's child was the result of rape by a Roman soldier.3
Berverly Gaventa turns to narrative criticism. She argues that exegesis has
been too preoccupied with isolated stories and failed to attend to the
building of character during the progress of the narrative. Her methodology
leads to new questions such as the contrast between Mary's immediate
believing response in Luke 1:38 and her perplexity at the conclusion of the
infancy narrative (Luke 2:48, 50).4
Entry of social sciences into the exegetical discipline has led scholars to
ask what mother-son relationships were like in the first century.' Is there a
special significance in the fact that any stories are told concerning Jesus
mother beyond the christological claim associated with the virgin
birth? Mary Therese DesCamp studied the recounting of Israelite history
in the late first century C.E. Book of Biblical Antiquities. She found a shift
toward identifying persons by their mothers rather than their fathers and
increased prominence given to women in retelling the biblical stories.6 Her
conclusion that female authorship or readership might be responsible for the
shift goes beyond any concrete evidence, but her research suggests that the
expanded role of Mary in Luke and John fits into a wider literary
trend. Mary enters the Gospel tradition in the process of retelling
inherited stories. Some concern the adult Jesus and his family. The better
known infancy stories focus on Jesus' origins through the lens of stories
about Moses (Matthew) or Samuel's mother Hannah (Luke). Luke and John also
provide Mary with a voice to praise God's saving deeds on behalf of a
suffering people (Luke) and to evoke from her son the first sign, which
reveals his glory to the disciples (John). Yet all that she is only occurs in
relation to her son. At the end of the tale, she fades back into the family of
his disciples (Acts 1:14; John 19:27).
THE ENIGMA OF JESUS' FAMILY
Our first glimpse of Mary in the story of Jesus' life (Mark 3:21,
31-35) seems to set her and other relatives in opposition to Jesus. Jesus, for
his part, explicitly redefines familial relationships. Those gathered around
him who hear and keep the will of God are his mother, brothers, and sisters.
This pronouncement leaves the status of the mother and siblings who are
outside seeking his attention ambiguous at best. In its Markan context, the
judgment appears even more severe. Mark 3:21 notes the arrival of relatives
who decide that Jesus' power over demons and crowds is a sign of mental
instability. They wish to restrain his public activity. Between that notice
and the arrival of his mother, brothers, and sisters, Mark has Jewish leaders
accuse Jesus of using magic (demonic power). Thus the narrative as a whole
appears to implicate the family in a false and even hostile view of Jesus'
ministry.
Luke 8:19-21 takes over the pronouncement concerning Jesus' true family,
but not its Markan context. In so doing, Luke opens up the possibility that
the mother and brothers who cannot reach Jesus because of the crowd are
nonetheless included in this definition.' Jesus repeats the emphasis on
hearing and keeping God's will in countering the blessing that anonymous
persons pronounce concerning his mother in Luke 11:27-28. Matt 12:46-50 also
avoids the Markan narrative context. The final saying generalizes being
"mother, brother, or sister" to Jesus to all disciples. By replacing Mark's
"God" with "my Father in heaven," Matthew makes it clear that God ("our Father
in heaven," Matt 6:9) is the source of this new family (Matt 23:9).8 Jesus is
not hostile to family bonds as such, but they are relativized by the
eschatological in-breaking of the kingdom (Matt 8:22).9
The second episode does not involve Jesus' family members directly. Rather
it is the familiarity of villagers in Nazareth with Jesus and his family that
keeps them from believing in him (Mark 6:1-6; Matt 13:53-57). Matthew
recontextualizes the episode so that Jesus' wisdom as well as his miraculous
powers figure in the villagers' considerations. John 4:42 uses a variant of
this tradition in the crowd grumbling over Jesus' identification of himself as
bread of life. Jesus' origins as far as they were known to those who knew him
best did not support his claim to be Son of God. John's Gospel also contains a
dramatic variant of the tradition that Jesus broke with his own family. His
brothers attempt to push Jesus into an inappropriate display of his powers
during the feast in Jerusalem (7:1-9). John 7:5 asserts that Jesus' brothers
were unbelievers. Unlike the Synoptic variant, Jesus' mother is not associated
with the unbelieving brothers.10 The enigma posed by this treatment of Jesus'
family becomes more problematic in view of Paul's evidence that James, the
brother of the Lord, was a prominent figure in the Jerusalem church (Gal 1:19;
2.9, 12) and witness to Jesus' resurrection (1 Cor 15:7). John Painter
concludes that as a matter of historical fact the relatives of Jesus played a
prominent role in both the ministry of Jesus and the emerging church. The
negative images in Galatians and the Gospels stem from polemics within the
early church."
INFANCY NARRATIVE: MARY THROUGH OLD TESTAMENT EYES
Whatever focus individual scholars give to the theological or literary
agenda of the infancy narratives (Matt 1:1-2.23; Luke 1:5-2.52), they agree
that Old Testament stories, wording, and allusions have shaped these
traditions. 12 Despite a number of common themes such as the names of Jesus'
parents, their relationship at the time of his birth, the place of his birth,
and their eventual residence, Matthew and Luke do not have a single story in
common. In Matthew, an angel tells Joseph to name Mary's child "Jesus"
(Matt 1:21) after Mary has already been discovered to be pregnant. In
Luke, Gabriel tells Mary that she is to become pregnant and is to call
her child "Jesus" (Luke 1:31). In Matthew, Joseph is the righteous descendent
of David, who immediately obeys God's will concerning his fiancee and her
child. In Luke, Mary is the obedient recipient of divine guidance.
Matthew and Luke draw on different sources for the traditional material in
their accounts.13
Matthew's version of Jesus' origins focuses on Joseph, whose adoption of
the child provides the point of entry into the Davidic line (1:2-17).4 Even
though the genealogy includes four women whose incorporation into the
messianic line involved unusual and in some cases scandalous circumstances,
their children have been fathers in that line. Matt 1:17 carefully breaks the
pattern to indicate that Joseph was not the biological father of Jesus.
Consequently, scholars assume reference to the other women in the genealogy
anticipates the fact that Jesus' conception occurred in circumstances that
appeared scandalous to the pious outsider.15 Where Joseph is functioning as
guardian and protector of the child (Matt 2:13-14, 20-21), the evangelist
avoids referring to Mary as Joseph's wife. 16 He is instructed to take
"the child and his mother." Thus the only interest Matthew has in Mary
is as mother of the child through whom God intends to enact great deeds of
salvation as he had done in the time of Moses. The Moses stories form the lens
through which the destiny of Jesus is enacted as Joseph must take his family
into Egypt. II Dreams of future greatness play a role in first century C.E.
Moses stories as well. In Josephus, Moses' father must be reassured concerning
the child his wife will bear, since Pharaoh is killing all the male children
(Antiquities 2.210-16).18
Matthew appears to have taken the tradition that Mary had conceived
her child prior to concluding the marriage with Joseph from inherited
tradition that also attributed Jesus' conception to the Holy Spirit (1:18).
This notice has been conflated with the tradition of an angelic annunciation
to Joseph and the proof text Isa 7:14.19 Gaventa proposes to expand Matthew's
slender portrait of Mary along the lines characteristic of liberation
and feminist theology. She adopts the category of threatened, needing divine
assistance, for the women in the genealogy, Mary at the point she is
found to be pregnant, and Mary as the mother of the threatened child in
Matthew 2.20 However, Matthew's narrative emphasis seems to lie much more
explicitly on the providential protection of the Son of God than on his peril.
Luke not only changes the perspective to focus on Mary,2" he also
elaborates the story in a series of diptych scenes that parallel the
announcement, birth, and naming of Jesus with that of his forerunner, John the
Baptist.22 If the Baptist's parents are upright, Mary is particularly
favored of God (1:28). When the Baptist's father questions the angel, he is
struck dumb for disbelief (1:19-22). When Mary does so, she is
reassured and declares herself the Lord's slave (1:34-38). Throughout the
whole account, Luke introduces his readers to the faithful, Temple-centered
piety of the "lowly ones" of Israel who await God's messiah.23 The
primary Old Testament story that figures in much of Luke's narrative is
that of Hannah's plea for a child at the shrine in Shiloh, her triumphant
canticle in celebration when God grants her plea, the blessing the elderly
priest Eli bestows on the parents, and Hannah's dedication of her son to God
in the temple (I Samuel 1-2). Elements of this story are threaded into the
accounts of Elizabeth and of Mary. Mary, like Hannah, remains
the active parent in determining the fate of her child.24
Hannah sings a canticle in celebration of God's power to exalt the poor and
lowly faithful ones over their enemies (1 Sam 2: 1-10); so does Mary in
words that often echo its predecessor (1:46-55).25 The analogy between Mary and Hannah limps when readers begin to press the issue of what
constitutes lowliness or oppression in Mary's case. Unlike Elizabeth or
Hannah, she is not a barren woman who experiences pregnancy as God's mighty
power removing her social humiliation. Schaberg's emphasis on the illegitimacy
of Jesus resolves this tension by identifying Mary as the despised
victim of rape by occupying soldiers.26 While this account plays into a
feminist and liberation perspective that affirms experiences of women and
other helpless civilians in the war zones of the world, it does not cohere
with the narrative level in Luke's Gospel. The parallelism between the stories
involving the Baptist and those referring to Jesus requires that Jesus' birth
be more astonishing than that of the Baptist. Mary has come to
Elizabeth in order to see the "sign" that confirms the truth of the angel's
revelation concerning the child to be born. Symbolically, the Baptist, as
forerunner, confirms the presence of the Messiah by leaping in the womb (1:41)
and, also inspired by the Spirit, Elizabeth's praise confirms the presence of
the Messiah (1:42-45).21
Inasmuch as analogies do not require exact correspondence between the two
cases, the simplest solution is to presume that the expression of humiliation
in Luke 1:48 has been taken from I Sam 1: 11. The generations who will speak
of Mary as blessed are no longer generations of physical descendants as
in Gen 30:13, but those who accept her son in faith.28 Luke may even have
inserted this Jewish Christian canticle into his narrative because it echoes
an important theme in the preaching of Jesus. God's salvation is at hand for
the lowly, poor, suffering people of God (Luke 4:16-30; 6:20-26).29 Thus the
narrative dynamic easily leads readers to identify Mary with the people
who are about to experience God's salvation in Jesus.30
An important characteristic of the people of God depicted in Luke's
portrayal of Mary is their piety and faith in God's saving power.
Although the stories in Luke 2 originated independently of those in Luke 1,311
the evangelist has threaded them together around a motif of temple worship and
patient waiting on the Lord typical of the rest of his narrative.32 As the new
community emerges in Acts, it too gathers in the temple for prayer and awaits
God's salvation (Acts 1:14, including Mary and Jesus' brothers;
2:43-47). Mary's response to Gabriel in 1:36-38 encodes a lesson on
prayer that would be easily recognized by ancient readers. The phrase "nothing
is impossible with God" (v. 37) encodes an extensive debate over God's ability
to respond to prayer.33 Willingness to accept God's will such as Mary
exhibits in 1:38 is required of those whose prayer invokes God's unlimited
power to save.31 Some scholars find a tension between Mary's exemplary
piety in Luke 1, and the uncertainty with which she seeks to figure out the
meaning of events in Luke 2:19 and 51.35 The oracle in which Simeon predicts
that the controversy and suffering of Jesus' ministry will be a sword piercing
the soul of his mother (2:34-35) has occasioned no little perplexity on the
part of exegetes.36 It certainly prepares readers for the divisions to be
occasioned by Jesus' ministry. These divisions are enacted again when Jesus
first proclaims the time of salvation in the synagogue at Nazareth (4:16-30). Mary at least exemplifies the response Luke expects readers to give to
the words and events depicted in the story of Jesus' adult life, which is
about to unfold. The apparent inability of Jesus' parents to understand his
compulsion to remain in the temple (2:41-52) highlights the christological
message implicit throughout the infancy narrative by contrasting Jesus'
destiny, to serve his Father (God), with the obligations embedded in natural
family relationships.37 Thus Mary is not only a model of the humble
people of God and of faithful prayer, she also instructs the reader on how to
approach the narrative of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.
MARY AND THE MINISTRY OF JESUS: THE GOSPEL OF JOHN
We have seen that John's Gospel separates the mother of Jesus from the
ambiguity attached to Jesus' family in the other Gospels. Instead, she plays a
role in inaugurating the public manifestation of Jesus' glory (2:1-12). She
reappears at the cross, where Jesus entrusts her to the Beloved Disciple
(19:25-27). Moden readers often find it peculiar that John never refers to Mary except as "the mother of Jesus." 38 Assessment of linguistic
evidence for the expression, "mother of NAME," shows that it sometimes refers
to a woman whose name is unknown. However, it appears more commonly for women
whose name is well-known to the audience.39 By using this expression, the
evangelist focuses the reader's attention on the cultural dynamic inherent in
the relationship.4" From a form-critical point of view, Jesus' apparent
brushing aside his mother's request to do something about the failing wine
supply (2:3-4) serves to throw up an obstacle to the use of miraculous
powers.41
The additional statement, "My hour has not yet come," (v. 4) presumes a
reader familiar with Johannine theological language. The "hour" is the
divinely sanctioned time for the Son to be glorified by his death on the cross
(12:23, 27; 13:1; 17:1). Jesus' brothers prove to be opponents of his mission
when they demand a manifestation of glory in Jerusalem prior to the
appropriate time (7:8, 30). When Mary next appears in the narrative,
Jesus will complete the hour of his return to the Father in dying on the cross
(19:28-30). The evangelist clearly intends these two scenes to frame Jesus'
ministry. No break occurs between Jesus and his mother. She gives instructions
to the servants as though Jesus had not posed an objection, and Jesus performs
the requisite miracle. Of course, the story departs from an ordinary nature
miracle such as the feeding of the 5,000 (John 6:1-14) in several ways. The
transaction by which Mary obtains the miraculous intervention occurs in
the private space of women and servants, not the public one of the bridegroom,
his banquet steward, or the male guests.42 None of these public figures even
know that a miracle has been performed. If John's readers presume that Mary's knowledge of the situation comes through overhearing what was
going on among the servants, they may not have known that the feast was
skirting the edge of disaster for lack of wine.43
The evangelist shifts the conclusion of the tale from Mary's
quick-witted intervention to save the groom's family from social disgrace,44
to a theological theme that recurs throughout the Gospel: ability to discern
God's glory in Jesus (1:14). The steward presumes that the groom sought to
outdo other hosts by providing his best wine at the end of the feast even
though most of his guests are too drunk to recognize the quality of his cellar
(2:10). Only Jesus' disciples and the servants know the origin of the wine.
This private miracle confirms Jesus' glory and hence the faith of his
disciples (2:11).45 At the end of this episode, Jesus, his mother, brothers,
and disciples return to Capernaum (2:12). In the subsequent narrative, Jesus
dissociates himself from his brothers (7:6-7). However, he incorporates his
mother into the Johannine community of believers when he turns her over to the
care of the Beloved Disciple (19:26-27). Just as Mary's confident
intervention marked the first sign of his relationship to the Father, so
Jesus' provision for her among those he leaves behind to take up his testimony
to the world (17:11-19) marks the culmination of his earthly life.46
A QUESTION OF Focus
Our brief survey of Gospel traditions concerning Mary indicates that
the evangelists are much less concerned with the details of how Jesus was
conceived than later exegetes. Mark and John do not mention it. Matthew and
Luke take the divine intervention in the conception of Jesus as a given in the
tradition. It can then be perceived as fulfillment of God's earlier promise
(Matt 1:22-23) or a sign that Mary's child is the long-awaited savior
(Luke 1:42-45). Modern efforts to render a more human portrait of Mary
are often battling later developments that enthrone her as Queen of Heaven
alongside the exalted Christ, who is to come in judgment. The Gospel portraits
of Mary have not exalted her over other women. In Mark and Matthew, Mary remains firmly embedded in the natural family from which Jesus
comes. One side of the story addresses the ambiguity of such family ties. They
can hinder efforts to call into existence the family of those who belong to
God's kingdom (Mark 3:31-35). At the very least, the well-known, ordinary
circumstances of Jesus' family make it difficult for some to believe that he
is Messiah, Son of God (Mark 6:1-6; John 6:41).
The other side of the story sees in that ordinary family the context of
faithful waiting on God that forms the foundation of the emerging community of
faith. Mary's story merges with the tradition of God's powerful deeds
on behalf of the poor and oppressed (Luke 1:45-55). At the same time,
salvation exacts a price in suffering (Luke 2:34-35). When Jesus announces
that the time of salvation is at hand, some immediately turn against him (Luke
4:16-30). Thus Luke's infancy narratives anticipate the Gospel message.
Similarly John's Gospel tells a double story of Jesus' family. His brothers
are too blinded by the exigencies of power and glory in this world to
understand the time of Jesus' hour (John 7:1-9). His mother, on the other
hand, exhibits a faithful perception of Jesus' mission. She inaugurates the
first demonstration of his glory, and with it, faith among his disciples
(2:1-12). She is joined in a new mother-son bond with the archetypal example
of faith in Jesus, the Beloved Disciple, at the end of Jesus' mission
(19:25-27). The Gospels do not paint a single portrait of Mary. Each
time she appears, they invite us to focus on another facet of Jesus as the
presence of salvation.
Footnote:
Even a study that seeks to discern the historical material underlying these
narratives concludes that they are primarily shaped by the theological
perspective of each evangelist (see Raymond E. Brown, The Birth of the Messiah
[New York: Doubleday. 1977; rev. ed., 1993], 32-8: 574-82). The
ground-breaking ecumenical study, Mary in the New Testament, ed. R.E.
Brown, et al (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978) comes to the same conclusion.
Footnote:
2See Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke I-IX (New York:
Doubleday, 1981), 340-1.
'Jane Schaberg, The Illegitimacy of Jesus: A Feminist Theological
Interpretation of the Infancy Narratives (San Francisco: Harper & Row,
1987).
4Beverly R. Gaventa, Marv: Glimpses of the Mother of Jesus tMinneapolis:
Fortress, 1999: original edition: Columbia: University of South Carolina
Press, 1995). 22-3.
Footnote:
5Bruce Malina, "Mother and Son," Biblical Theology Bulletin 20 (1990),
54-64; Ritva H. Williams, "The Mother of Jesus at Cana: A Social-Science
Interpretation of John 2.1-12," Catholic Biblical Quarterly 59 (1997), 679-92.
These studies have the methodological difficulty of relying on modern studies
of an alleged "Mediterranean" family type. Most studies of family in antiquity
are badly flawed because they conflate material from different periods and
cultural areas. Detailed analysis shows that important cultural patterns, like
the public and private space and activity of women, differed considerably in
the ancient world itself. For an attempt to correct some of the flaws in
earlier scholarship, see Sarah B. Pomeroy, Families in Classical and
Hellenistic Greece: Representations and Realities (Oxford: Clarendon, 1997).
"Mary Therese DesCamp, "Why are these Women Here? An Examination of
the Sociological Setting of Pseudo-Philo through Comparative Reading," Journal
for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 16 (1997), 53-80.
Footnote:
'Fitzmyer, Luke I-IX 722-3. Gaventa points out the ambiguity that remains
in Luke's rewriting (Mary, 70-1). In order to conclude that Mary
is a model of the discipleship that Jesus defines, one must adopt the point of
view of the infancy narratives.
BW.D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, The Gospel According to Saint Matthew
VII-XVIII (Edingburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1988), 364-5.
9Ibid., 53-8, 364.
Footnote:
")Judith M. Lieu, "The Mother of the Son in the Fourth Gospel," Journal of
Biblical Literature 117 (1998), 66. What the exact biological relationship
between the brothers and sisters referred to in the Gospels and Jesus was does
not concern us. None of the evangelists presuppose that Mary's virginity extended beyond the conception and birth of Jesus. See the
discussion in Fitzmyer (Luke I-IX, 724).
"John Painter, Just James: The Brother of Jesus in Histon, and Tradition
(Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1997), 59-94.
Footnote:
12 The Septuagint or variant Greek translations of the Hebrew Bible have
been employed at all levels of the formation of this material. Matt 1:22-23
has redacted a variant Greek text of Isa 7:14, which has parthenos
("virgin") rather than the Hebrew alma ("young girl"); see Brown,
Birth, 145-53.
'Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 1-13 (Dallas: Word, 1993), 14-6.
14The angel addresses Joseph as "son of David" (Matt 1:20), the only time
that someone other than Jesus is referred to with this title in the Gospels
(Hagner, Matthew 1-13, 18).
15Davies and Allison, Matthew I-VII, 187.
Footnote:
"Ibid., 183.
Footnote:
The wording of the command to return from Egypt (Matt 2:19-21 ) is nearly
identical to the command that Moses return to Egypt (Exod 4:19-20 [LXXI;
Davies and Allison, Matthew I-VII, 193).
"Ibid., 192. The same tradition in Pseudo-Philo's Biblical Antiquities
shows the shift toward female characters typical of that work by having the
Holy Spirit inspire Moses' sister, Miriam, to prophesy that God will do
wonders and save the people through the child to be born (LAB 9.10).
"'Ibid., 194-200. The text provides no evidence to support the view that Mary conceived the child with Joseph during her period of betrothal.
Such a circumstance would not have caused the righteous Joseph to consider
divorcing his fiancee for her apparent infidelity.
Footnote:
2"Gaventa, Mary, 38-42.
"Fitzmyer describes Luke's narrative as "imitative historiography." The
evangelist's infancy narrative is largely free composition based on Old
Testament motifs (Luke I-IX, 309). ==Ibid., 313-4.
=;Fitzmyer, Luke I-IX, 315-6. Landry's explanation that Zechariah is
punished because his case repeats the Old Testament pattern of a child given
to a barren, elderly couple, while Mary is rightly perplexed about how
the angel's words apply to her situation is overly subtle (see David T.
Landry, "Narrative Logic in the Annunciation to Mary [Luke 1.26-38],"
Journal of Biblical Literature 114 [1995], 76).
Footnote:
'Hannah dedicates Samuel at the temple as soon is he is weaned and brings
new clothing for the boy when the family comes for the annual sacrifice (I Sam
1:21-28; 2:18-20). Mary, not Joseph, reprimands Jesus when he stays
behind in the temple (Luke 2:48). Nolland's view that the literary desire to
parallel Mary's reference to "your father" (Joseph) with the "my
father" (God) in Jesus' reply (v. 49) hardly seems sufficient to explain the
persistent focus on Mary's activity (John Nolland, Luke 1-9:20 [Dallas:
Word, 1989], 130). In Hannah's case, one has the motif of competing wives. In
those instances, the mother becomes an advocate for her offspring.
25Both canticles appear to be independent pieces that have been attributed
to the heroines in question. The Magnificat shows no signs of a Hebrew or
Aramaic original. Its phrasing depends upon the LXX parallels: v. 46b, 1 Sam
2:1; v. 47, Ps 25:5; v. 48a, I Sam 1: 11: v 48b, Ps 113:5-6: v. 49a, Dent
10:21; v. 496, Ps 111:9; v. 50, Ps 89:11: v. 52, 1 Sam 2:4, 7; v. 53a, Ps
107:9 and I Sam 2:5; v. 53b, Job 22:9: v. 54a, Isa 41:8-9; v. 54b, Ps 98:3; v.
55, Mic 7:20 (see Fitzmyer, Luke I-IX, 356-9; Brown, Birth, 346-66; 643-6).
Footnote:
26Schaberg, Illegitimacy, 97. Contrary to the usual reading of Mary's departure to visit Elizabeth "in haste" as an indication of
eagerness to do God's will or confirm the sign God has given (as the shepherds
do in 2:15-16), Schaberg treats her reaction as one of terror (Ibid., 97).
This explanation highlights a narrative dilemma embedded in the story since
the annunciation scene (Ibid., 87-8). The special character of the son to be
born of a young woman who is engaged to be married as well as the appropriate
name for the child might be revealed to the mother without need for divine
intervention in the birth (see David T. Landry, "Narrative Logic in the
Annunciation to Mary [Luke 1:26-38]," 65-79). Landry points out that
Schaberg's thesis contradicts the narrative level of Luke's story, which
requires that Mary be genuinely troubled by the angel's words. Her
condition is asserted to be physically impossible and requires both divine
action and a confirming divine sign (1:36-37; Ibid., 72-5).
Footnote:
17Fitzmyer, Luke I-IX, 357-64. The phrase "blessed among women" (Jdg 5:24;
Jdt 13:18) is a Semitic way of expressing the superlative. Since a woman is
"blessed" by the number of her children, the mother of the Messiah is blessed
above all women (Ibid., 364).
Footnote:
2Ibid. 367
Footnote:
29Brown, Birth, 647-50.
"This parallel includes the socioeconomic dimension of God's concern for
the oppressed and poor later in the Gospel. Mary's experience is both
individual and representative of the suffering people of God in need of the
Messiah's deliverance (Isa 9:6; 2 Esdr 9:45, Israel personified as a woman
crying out to God for a son; see Nolland. Luke 1-9:20, 69-72).
31As the need to reintroduce Mary in Luke 2:5 and the lack of
Jesus/John the Baptist parallels indicate (Fitzmyer, Luke I-IX, 392).
-Ibid., 419.
Footnote:
33The maxim appears in variant form in Jesus' teaching on prayer (Mark
11:22-25). Contrary to some philosophic traditions holding that there were
things the gods could not do, the Jewish and Christian traditions side with
the position that God's power is unlimited. See Sharon E. Dowd, Prayer, Power
and the Problem of Suffering: Mark 11:22-25 in the Context of Markan Theology
(Atlanta: Scholars, 1988), 52-92.
34 As exhibited by Jesus in Gethsemane (Mark 14:36; Luke 22:42).
Footnote:
"For the meaning of the unusual phrase "toss about in her heart" (v. 19) as
reflecting upon and trying to discern the meaning of all the events she has
witnessed as well as what has been said to her, see Fitzmyer (Luke I-IX,
398;413). The imagery reflects the response of Jacob when Joseph reports his
dreams (Gen 37: 11 [LXX]; Josephus, Antiquities 2.72).
3,Fitzmyer points to parallels in which the sword cuts through the people
of God as a sword of judgment (Ezek 14:17 [LXX]; Luke I-IX, 421-30). He
rejects the common view that the sword pierces Mary when she witnesses
her son die on the cross because Luke does not include Mary among the
women who have followed Jesus from Galilee (Ibid., 429). However, Luke may
intend readers to think of that episode even if Mary does not appear at
the cross. Acts 1:14 includes her in the group of disciples gathered in
Jerusalem. Also see the objection to Fitzmyer's position by Gaventa, who
brings in parallel sentiments from letters of consolation in antiquity
(Mary, 65-6).
37Nolland, Luke 1-9:20, 131-3.
Footnote:
"The presence of the name "Joseph" for Jesus' father at 6:41 indicates that
his parents' names were known in that tradition. Tax records from Hellenistic
Egypt show a change in family listings upon the death of a woman's husband.
Her name no longer follows his. Instead, the expression "mother" appears at
the end of the list that represents the new configuration of the household
(Pomeroy, Families, 203-5).
39Troy W. Martin, "Assessing the Johannine Epithet 'the Mother of Jesus,' "
Catholic Biblical Quarterly 60 (1998), 68-73.
4"So Williams, "Cultural Context," 685. Williams' assertion that the names
of respectable women were not mentioned in public (Ibid., 685 n. 22) exceeds
the evidence but rightly
Footnote:
points out that there is no implication of distance between Jesus and Mary in this formula. Lieu notes that John's opening "there was +
PERSON" serves as the formal introduction of a significant individual (also 3:
1: "The Mother," 63).
"The NRSV translation, "Woman, what concern is that to you and me," may
represent the intent of the exchange at the level of social interaction (so
Williams, "Cultural Context," 688) but does not reflect the common usage of
the expression to refuse or brush off a request (2 Sam 16: 101 Kgs 17:18; see
Lieu, "Mother," 65).
42Williams, "Cultural Context," 684-6.
43lbid., 686.
Footnote:
"To push the social honor transactions between the two families as Williams
does ("Cultural Context," 688) fails to grasp the private side of the miracle
performed. Private acts do not provide the requisite trade-off in social
respect (Matt 6:1-6).
45Williams, "Cultural Context," 690.
Footnote:
161-icu, "Mother," 70. Gaventa's assertion that this scene serves to
complete the process of stripping Jesus of everything that belongs to his
earthly life (Mary, 91-2) introduces a theological motif that is not
characteristic of the Fourth Gospel in which Jesus hands over the Spirit at
the completion of his mission (19:30).
Author Affiliation:
Pheme Perkins is Professor of New Testament at Boston College. She is the
author of numerous books, including "The Gospel of Mark" in the New
Interpreter 's Bible, Volume 8 (1995 ) and Ephesians (1997).