Mary, the mother of Jesus Christ, has been accorded a special place of devotion especially in the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches. The New Testament records that she was the cousin of Elizabeth, mother of John the Baptist, and that she was betrothed and, later, married to Joseph. After giving birth to Jesus in a stable at Bethlehem, where she had gone with Joseph to register for a government census, Mary returned to Nazareth to live quietly and humbly with her family (Luke 2:1-20). At his crucifixion Jesus asked his beloved disciple, John, to look after his mother. Little is known about Mary after this, although Acts 1:14, the last reference to her in the New Testament, places her among the disciples.
The New Testament states that Mary conceived Jesus by the Holy Spirit and thus without losing her virginity (Matt. 1:18, 20; Luke 1:35). Despite biblical references to Jesus' "brothers," the idea of Mary's perpetual virginity appeared in the early church. Saint Athanasius used the term "ever virgin" to refer to Mary, and this view was apparently accepted by the Fathers of the Church from the 5th century on. It was formally established as a doctrine at the church's Lateran Council in 649. Although the Virgin Birth is a tenet of virtually all Christian churches, modern biblical criticism has questioned the authenticity of the accounts in Matthew and Luke. The doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity is taught principally by the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches.
| BELIEVE Religious Information Source web-site |
| Our List of 1,000 Religious Subjects |
Pope Pius XII strongly promoted Marian piety during his reign (1939-58). Because Roman Catholic teaching holds that Mary is deserving of the "highest veneration," the church observes 17 Marian festivals each year, 5 of which are major: Immaculate Conception, Dec. 8; Purification, Feb. 2; Annunciation, Mar. 25; Assumption, Aug. 15; and Birth, Sept. 8. The Rosary contains 50 Ave Marias ("hail Marys"), and devotion to the "immaculate heart" of Mary is popular in some circles.
Protestant bodies have always reacted strongly against excessive devotion to Mary. In recent years, however, Protestant, Anglican, and Roman Catholic scholars have held discussions in which substantive agreements regarding the place of Mary in Christian theology and practice have been reached. The Second Vatican Council (1962-65) included a chapter on Mary in the Constitution of the Church that emphasizes Mary's complete dependence on her Son.
Harold W. Rast
Bibliography:
Brown, Raymond E., The Birth of the Messiah
(1977); Brown, Raymond E., et al., eds., Mary in the New
Testament (1978); Graef, Hilda C., Mary: A History of
Doctrine and Devotion, 2 vols. (1963-65); McHugh, John, The
Mother of Jesus in the New Testament (1975); Miegge,
Giovanni, The Virgin Mary: The Roman Catholic Marian
Doctrine, trans. by W. Smith (1955); Ruether, Rosemary R.,
Mary--The Feminine Face of the Church (1977); Warner,
Marina, Alone of All Her Sex: The Myth and the Cult of the
Virgin Mary (1976).
Closely related to the title Mother of God is the title Virgin Mary,
affirming the virginal conception of Jesus (Luke 1:35). Initially,
this title stressed the belief that God, not Joseph, was the true
father of Jesus. In the Marian devotion that developed in the East
in the 4th century, Mary was venerated not only in the conception
but also in the birth of Jesus. This conviction was expressed clearly
in the 4th century, baptismal creeds of Cyprus, Syria, Palestine,
and Armenia. The title used was aieiparthenos (ever-virgin),
and by the middle of the 7th century the understanding of the title
came to include the conviction that Mary remained a virgin for the
whole of her life. The passages in the New Testament referring to
the brothers of Jesus (for instance, Mark 6:3, which also mentions
sisters; see 1 Corinthians 9:5; Galatians 1:19) have been
accordingly explained as references to relatives of Jesus or to
children of Joseph by a previous marriage, although there is no
historical evidence for this interpretation.
In the 2nd and 3rd centuries, various Christian writers began to
express the belief that, because of her intimate union with God
through the Holy Spirit in the conception of Jesus (Luke 1:35),
Mary was completely free from any taint of sin. In 680 a Roman Council
spoke of her as the "blessed, immaculate ever-virgin."
In both the Eastern and Western churches, feast days in honor of the
events of Mary's life came into existence between the 4th and 7th
centuries. They celebrate her miraculous conception and her birth,
narrated in the apocryphal "Infancy Gospel" of James (September 8);
the Annunciation (March 25); her purification in the Temple
(February 2); and her death (called the Dormition in the
Eastern church) and bodily Assumption into heaven (August 15; see
Assumption of the Virgin).
Except for the Gospels, the Scriptures make little explicit reference
to Mary. Certain OT prophecies have been thought to refer to her (Gen.
3:15; Jer. 31:22; Mic. 5:2-3; and, most clearly, Isa. 7:14). The
symbolic drama of Rev. 12 has often been similarly interpreted. Paul
mentions Mary specifically once (Gal. 4:4). For anything more, we must
inquire of the Gospel writers. Luke presents the most detailed
portrait. While Matthew also tells the nativity story, his references
to Mary are brief, even though he strongly stresses her virginity
(Matt. 1:18-25). Luke, however, vividly describes her encounter with
the angel, her visit to Elizabeth, her beautiful "Magnificat," the
birth of Jesus, and her trips to Jerusalem with the infant and the
twelve-year-old Jesus (Luke 1:26-2:51). Mary appears humbly obedient in
the face of her great task (Luke 1:38), yet deeply thoughtful and
somewhat perplexed as to its significance (Luke 1:29; 2:29, 35, 50-51).
According to an episode recounted by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, Jesus'
mother and his "brothers" stand outside the early circle of disciples
(Matt. 12:46-50; Mark 3:19b-21, 31-35; Luke 8:19-21; cf. Luke
11:27-28). Elsewhere Jesus complains that he is not without honor save
"among his own kin, and in his own house" (Mark 6:4; cf. Matt.
13:53-58; Luke 4: 16-30). John apparently recounts some
misunderstanding between Jesus and Mary at the wedding feast in Cana
(John 2:1-12). Yet John pictures Mary remaining faithful beside the
cross, while Jesus commends her to his "beloved disciple's" care (John
19:25-27).
Finally, Luke lists Mary among the earliest post-Easter
Christians (Acts 1:14). Traditionally, Catholics have venerated Mary as
entirely sinless and as the most glorious of God's creatures. Feeling
that this detracts from the centrality of Christ, Protestants have
often neglected her unduly. Radical biblical criticism in doubting the
infancy narratives' historicity often furthered this neglect. However,
the increasing importance of women's issues has spurred new interests
in Mary among both Protestants and Catholics alike.
T N Finger
Bibliography
Mary, Hebrew Miriam.
(1.) The wife of Joseph, the mother of Jesus, called the "Virgin
Mary," though never so designated in Scripture (Matt. 2:11;
Acts 1:14). Little is known of her personal history. Her genealogy is
given in Luke 3. She was of the tribe of Judah and the lineage of David
(Ps. 132:11; Luke 1:32). She was connected by marriage with Elisabeth,
who was of the lineage of Aaron (Luke 1:36).
While she resided at
Nazareth with her parents, before she became the wife of Joseph, the
angel Gabriel announced to her that she was to be the mother of the
promised Messiah (Luke 1:35). After this she went to visit her cousin
Elisabeth, who was living with her husband Zacharias (probably at
Juttah, Josh. 15:55; 21:16, in the neighbourhood of Maon), at a
considerable distance, about 100 miles, from Nazareth. Immediately on
entering the house she was saluted by Elisabeth as the mother of her
Lord, and then forthwith gave utterance to her hymn of thanksgiving
(Luke 1:46-56; comp. 1 Sam. 2: 1-10).
After three months Mary returned
to Nazareth to her own home. Joseph was supernaturally made aware
(Matt. 1: 18-25) of her condition, and took her to his own home. Soon
after this the decree of Augustus (Luke 2:1) required that they should
proceed to Bethlehem (Micah 5:2), some 80 or 90 miles from Nazareth;
and while they were there they found shelter in the inn or khan
provided for strangers (Luke 2:6, 7). But as the inn was crowded, Mary
had to retire to a place among the cattle, and there she brought forth
her son, who was called Jesus (Matt. 1:21), because he was to save his
people from their sins.
This was followed by the presentation in the
temple, the flight into Egypt, and their return in the following year
and residence at Nazareth (Matt. 2). There for thirty years Mary, the
wife of Joseph the carpenter, resides, filling her own humble sphere,
and pondering over the strange things that had happened to her.
During
these years only one event in the history of Jesus is recorded, viz.,
his going up to Jerusalem when twelve years of age, and his being found
among the doctors in the temple (Luke 2:41-52). Probably also during
this period Joseph died, for he is not again mentioned.
After the
commencement of our Lord's public ministry little notice is taken of
Mary. She was present at the marriage in Cana. A year and a half after
this we find her at Capernaum (Matt. 12:46, 48, 49), where Christ
uttered the memorable words, "Who is my mother? and who are my
brethren? And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and
said, Behold my mother and my brethren!"
The next time we find her is
at the cross along with her sister Mary, and Mary Magdalene, and
Salome, and other women (John 19:26). From that hour John took her to
his own abode. She was with the little company in the upper room after
the Ascension (Acts 1:14). From this time she wholly disappears from
public notice. The time and manner of her death are unknown.
(2.) Mary
Magdalene, i.e., Mary of Magdala, a town on the western shore of the
Lake of Tiberias. She is for the first time noticed in Luke 8:3 as one
of the women who "ministered to Christ of their substance." Their
motive was that of gratitude for deliverances he had wrought for them.
Out of Mary were cast seven demons. Gratitude to her great Deliverer
prompted her to become his follower. These women accompanied him also
on his last journey to Jerusalem (Matt. 27:55; Mark 15:41; Luke 23:55).
They stood near the cross. There Mary remained till all was over, and
the body was taken down and laid in Joseph's tomb.
Again, in the
earliest dawn of the first day of the week she, with Salome and Mary
the mother of James (Matt. 28:1; Mark 16:2), came to the sepulchre,
bringing with them sweet spices, that they might anoint the body of
Jesus. They found the sepulchre empty, but saw the "vision of angels"
(Matt. 28:5). She hastens to tell Peter and John, who were probably
living together at this time (John 20:1, 2), and again immediately
returns to the sepulchre. There she lingers thoughtfully, weeping at
the door of the tomb. The risen Lord appears to her, but at first she
knows him not. His utterance of her name "Mary" recalls her to
consciousness, and she utters the joyful, reverent cry, "Rabboni."
She
would fain cling to him, but he forbids her, saying, "Touch me not; for
I am not yet ascended to my Father." This is the last record regarding
Mary of Magdala, who now returned to Jerusalem. The idea that this Mary
was "the woman who was a sinner," or that she was unchaste, is
altogether groundless.
(3.) Mary the sister of Lazarus is brought to
our notice in connection with the visits of our Lord to Bethany. She is
contrasted with her sister Martha, who was "cumbered about many things"
while Jesus was their guest, while Mary had chosen "the good part." Her
character also appears in connection with the death of her brother
(John 11:20,31,33). On the occasion of our Lord's last visit to
Bethany, Mary brought "a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly,
and anointed the feet of Jesus" as he reclined at table in the house of
one Simon, who had been a leper (Matt.26:6; Mark 14:3; John 12:2,3).
This was an evidence of her overflowing love to the Lord. Nothing is
known of her subsequent history. It would appear from this act of
Mary's, and from the circumstance that they possessed a family vault
(11:38), and that a large number of Jews from Jerusalem came to condole
with them on the death of Lazarus (11:19), that this family at Bethany
belonged to the wealthier class of the people.
(4.) Mary
the wife of Cleopas is mentioned (John 19:25) as standing at the cross
in company with Mary of Magdala and Mary the mother of Jesus. By
comparing Matt. 27:56 and Mark 15:40, we find that this Mary and "Mary
the mother of James the little" are one and the same person, and that
she was the sister of our Lord's mother. She was that "other Mary" who
was present with Mary of Magdala at the burial of our Lord (Matt.
27:61; Mark 15:47); and she was one of those who went early in the
morning of the first day of the week to anoint the body, and thus
became one of the first witnesses of the resurrection (Matt. 28:1; Mark
16: 1; Luke 24:1).
(5.) Mary the mother of John Mark was one of the
earliest of our Lord's disciples. She was the sister of Barnabas (Col.
4:10), and joined with him in disposing of their land and giving the
proceeds of the sale into the treasury of the Church (Acts 4:37;
12:12). Her house in Jerusalem was the common meeting-place for the
disciples there.
(6.) A Christian at Rome who treated Paul with special
kindness (Rom. 16:6).
(Easton Illustrated Dictionary)
The Blessed Virgin Mary is the mother of Jesus Christ, the mother of God.
In general, the theology and history of Mary the Mother of God follow the
chronological order of their respective sources, i.e. the Old Testament, the New
Testament, the early Christian and Jewish witnesses.
I. MARY PROPHESIED IN THE OLD TESTAMENT
The Old Testament refers to Our Blessed Lady both in its prophecies and its
types or figures.
Genesis 3:15
The first prophecy referring to Mary is found in the very opening chapters of
the Book of Genesis (3:15): "I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and
thy seed and her seed; she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for
her heel." This rendering appears to differ in two respects from the original
Hebrew text:
(1) First, the Hebrew text employs the same verb for the two renderings "she
shall crush" and "thou shalt lie in wait"; the Septuagint renders the verb both
times by terein, to lie in wait; Aquila, Symmachus, the Syriac and the Samaritan
translators, interpret the Hebrew verb by expressions which mean to crush, to
bruise; the Itala renders the terein employed in the Septuagint by the Latin
"servare", to guard; St. Jerome [1] maintains that the Hebrew verb has the
meaning of "crushing" or "bruising" rather than of "lying in wait", "guarding".
Still in his own work, which became the Latin Vulgate, the saint employs the
verb "to crush" (conterere) in the first place, and "to lie in wait" (insidiari)
in the second. Hence the punishment inflicted on the serpent and the serpent's
retaliation are expressed by the same verb: but the wound of the serpent is
mortal, since it affects his head, while the wound inflicted by the serpent is
not mortal, being inflicted on the heel.
(2) The second point of difference between the Hebrew text and our version
concerns the agent who is to inflict the mortal wound on the serpent: our
version agrees with the present Vulgate text in reading "she" (ipsa) which
refers to the woman, while the Hebrew text reads hu' (autos, ipse) which refers
to the seed of the woman. According to our version, and the Vulgate reading, the
woman herself will win the victory; according to the Hebrew text, she will be
victorious through her seed. In this sense does the Bull "Ineffabilis" ascribe
the victory to Our Blessed Lady. The reading "she" (ipsa) is neither an
intentional corruption of the original text, nor is it an accidental error; it
is rather an explanatory version expressing explicitly the fact of Our Lady's
part in the victory over the serpent, which is contained implicitly in the
Hebrew original. The strength of the Christian tradition as to Mary's share in
this victory may be inferred from the retention of "she" in St. Jerome's version
in spite of his acquaintance with the original text and with the reading "he"
(ipse) in the old Latin version.
As it is quite commonly admitted that the Divine judgment is directed not so
much against the serpent as against the originator of sin, the seed of the
serpent denotes the followers of the serpent, the "brood of vipers", the
"generation of vipers", those whose father is the Devil, the children of evil,
imitando, non nascendo (Augustine). [2] One may be tempted to understand the
seed of the woman in a similar collective sense, embracing all who are born of
God. But seed not only may denote a particular person, but has such a meaning
usually, if the context allows it. St. Paul (Galatians 3:16) gives this
explanation of the word "seed" as it occurs in the patriarchal promises: "To
Abraham were the promises made and to his seed. He saith not, and to his seeds,
as of many; but as of one, and to his seed, which is Christ". Finally the
expression "the woman" in the clause "I will put enmities between thee and the
woman" is a literal version of the Hebrew text. The Hebrew Grammar of
Gesenius-Kautzsch [3] establishes the rule: Peculiar to the Hebrew is the use of
the article in order to indicate a person or thing, not yet known and not yet to
be more clearly described, either as present or as to be taken into account
under the contextual conditions. Since our indefinite article serves this
purpose, we may translate: "I will put enmities between you and a woman". Hence
the prophecy promises a woman, Our Blessed Lady, who will be the enemy of the
serpent to a marked degree; besides, the same woman will be victorious over the
Devil, at least through her offspring. The completeness of the victory is
emphasized by the contextual phrase "earth shall thou eat", which is according
to Winckler [4] a common old-oriental expression denoting the deepest
humiliation [5].
Isaias 7:1-17
The second prophecy referring to Mary is found in Isaias 7:1-17. Critics have
endeavoured to represent this passage as a combination of occurrences and
sayings from the life of the prophet written down by an unknown hand [6]. The
credibility of the contents is not necessarily affected by this theory, since
prophetic traditions may be recorded by any writer without losing their
credibility. But even Duhm considers the theory as an apparent attempt on the
part of the critics to find out what the readers are willing to bear patiently;
he believes it is a real misfortune for criticism itself that it has found a
mere compilation in a passage which so graphically describes the birth-hour of
faith.
According to 2 Kings 16:1-4, and 2 Chronicles 27:1-8, Achaz, who began his reign
736 B.C., openly professed idolatry, so that God gave him into the hands of the
kings of Syria and Israel. It appears that an alliance had been concluded
between Phacee, King of Israel, and Rasin, King of Damascus, for the purpose of
opposing a barrier to the Assyrian aggressions. Achaz, who cherished Assyrian
proclivities, did not join the coalition; the allies invaded his territory,
intending to substitute for Achaz a more subservient ruler, a certain son of
Tabeel. While Rasin was occupied in reconquering the maritime city Elath, Phacee
alone proceeded against Juda, "but they could not prevail". After Elath had
fallen, Rasin joined his forces with those of Phacee; "Syria hath rested upon
Ephraim", whereupon "his (Achaz') heart was moved, and the heart of his people,
as the trees of the woods are moved with the wind". Immediate preparations must
be made for a protracted siege, and Achaz is busily engaged near the upper pool
from which the city received the greater part of its water supply. Hence the
Lord says to Isaias: "Go forth to meet Achaz. . .at the end of the conduit of
the upper pool". The prophet's commission is of an extremely consoling nature:
"See thou be quiet; hear not, and let not thy heart be afraid of the two tails
of these firebrands". The scheme of the enemies shall not succeed: "it shall not
stand, and this shall not be." What is to be the particular fate of the enemies?
Syria will gain nothing, it will remain as it has been in the past: "the head
of Syria is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is Rasin".
Ephraim too will remain in the immediate future as it has been hitherto: "the
head of Ephraim is Samaria, and the head of Samaria the son of Romelia"; but
after sixty-five years it will be destroyed, "within threescore and five years
Ephraim shall cease to be a people".
Achaz had abandoned the Lord for Moloch, and put his trust in an alliance with
Assyria; hence the conditional prophecy concerning Juda, "if you will not
believe, you shall not continue". The test of belief follows immediately: "ask
thee a sign of the Lord thy God, either unto the depth of hell or unto the
height above". Achaz hypocritically answers: "I will not ask, and I will not
tempt the Lord", thus refusing to express his belief in God, and preferring his
Assyrian policy. The king prefers Assyria to God, and Assyria will come: "the
Lord shall bring upon thee and upon thy people, and upon the house of thy
father, days that have not come since the time of the separation of Ephraim from
Juda with the king of the Assyrians." The house of David has been grievous not
merely to men, but to God also by its unbelief; hence it "shall not continue",
and, by an irony of Divine punishment, it will be destroyed by those very men
whom it preferred to God.
Still the general Messianic promises made to the house of David cannot be
frustrated: "The Lord Himself shall give you a sign. Behold a virgin shall
conceive, and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel. He shall eat
butter and honey, that he may know to refuse the evil and to choose the good.
For before the child know to refuse the evil, and to choose the good, the land
which thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of the face of her two kings." Without
answering a number of questions connected with the explanation of the prophecy,
we must confine ourselves here to the bare proof that the virgin mentioned by
the prophet is Mary the Mother of Christ. The argument is based on the premises
that the prophet's virgin is the mother of Emmanuel, and that Emmanuel is
Christ. The relation of the virgin to Emmanuel is clearly expressed in the
inspired words; the same indicate also the identity of Emmanuel with the Christ.
The connection of Emmanuel with the extraordinary Divine sign which was to be
given to Achaz predisposes one to see in the child more than a common boy. In
8:8, the prophet ascribes to him the ownership of the land of Juda: "the
stretching out of his wings shall fill the breadth of thy land, O Emmanuel". In
9:6, the government of the house of David is said to be upon his shoulders, and
he is described as being endowed with more than human qualities: "a child is
born to us, and a son is given to us, and the government is upon his shoulders,
and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, God the Mighty, the Father
of the World to Come, and the Prince of Peace". Finally, the prophet calls
Emmanuel "a rod out of the root of Jesse" endowed with "the spirit of the Lord.
. .the spirit of wisdom and of understanding, the spirit of counsel, and of
fortitude, the spirit of knowledge and of godliness"; his advent shall be
followed by the general signs of the Messianic era, and the remnant of the
chosen people shall be again the people of God (11:1-16).
Whatever obscurity or ambiguity there may be in the prophetic text itself is
removed by St. Matthew (1:18-25). After narrating the doubt of St. Joseph and
the angel's assurance, "that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost",
the Evangelist proceeds: "now all this was done that it might be fulfilled which
the Lord spoke by the prophet, saying: Behold a virgin shall be with child, and
bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel." We need not repeat
the exposition of the passage given by Catholic commentators who answer the
exceptions raised against the obvious meaning of the Evangelist. We may infer
from all this that Mary is mentioned in the prophecy of Isaias as mother of
Jesus Christ; in the light of St. Matthew's reference to the prophecy, we may
add that the prophecy predicted also Mary's virginity untarnished by the
conception of the Emmanuel [7].
Micheas 5:2-3
A third prophecy referring to Our Blessed Lady is contained in Micah 5:2-3: "And
thou, Bethlehem, Ephrata, art a little one among the thousands of Juda: out of
thee shall be come forth unto me that is to be the ruler in Israel, and his
going forth is from the beginning, from the days of eternity. Therefore will he
give them up till the time wherein she that travaileth shall bring forth, and
the remnant of his brethren shall be converted to the children of Israel."
Though the prophet (about 750-660 B.C.) was a contemporary of Isaias, his
prophetic activity began a little later and ended a little earlier than that of
Isaias. There can be no doubt that the Jews regarded the foregoing prediction as
referring to the Messias. According to St. Matthew (2:6) the chief priests and
scribes, when asked where the Messias was to be born, answered Herod in the
words of the prophecy, "And thou Bethlehem the land of Juda. . ." According to
St. John (7:42), the Jewish populace gathered at Jerusalem for the celebration
of the feast asked the rhetorical question: "Doth not the Scripture say that
Christ cometh of the seed of David, and from Bethlehem, the town where David
was?" The Chaldee paraphrase of Micah 5:2, confirms the same view: "Out of thee
shall come forth unto me the Messias, that he may exercise dominion in Israel".
The very words of the prophecy admit of hardly any other explanation; for "his
going forth is from the beginning, from the days of eternity".
But how does the prophecy refer to the Virgin Mary? Our Blessed Lady is denoted
by the phrase, "till the time wherein she that travaileth shall bring forth". It
is true that "she that travaileth" has been referred to the Church (St. Jerome,
Theodoret), or to the collection of the Gentiles united with Christ (Ribera,
Mariana), or again to Babylon (Calmet); but, on the one hand, there is hardly a
sufficient connection between any of these events and the promised redeemer, on
the other hand, the passage ought to read "till the time wherein she that is
barren shall bring forth" if any of these events were referred to by the
prophet. Nor can "she that travaileth" be referred to Sion: Sion is spoken of
without figure before and after the present passage so that we cannot expect the
prophet to lapse suddenly into figurative language. Moreover, the prophecy thus
explained would not give a satisfactory sense. The contextual phrases "the ruler
in Israel", "his going forth", which in Hebrew implies birth, and "his brethren"
denote an individual, not a nation; hence we infer that the bringing forth must
refer to the same person. It has been shown that the person of the ruler is the
Messias; hence "she that travaileth" must denote the mother of Christ, or Our
Blessed Lady. Thus explained the whole passage becomes clear: the Messias must
be born in Bethlehem, an insignificant village in Juda: his family must be
reduced to poverty and obscurity before the time of his birth; as this cannot
happen if the theocracy remains intact, if David's house continues to flourish,
"therefore will he give them up till the time wherein she that travaileth shall
bring forth" the Messias. [8]
Jeremias 31:22
A fourth prophecy referring to Mary is found in Jeremias 31:22; "The Lord has
created a new thing upon the earth: A woman shall compass a man". The text of
the prophet Jeremias offers no small difficulties for the scientific
interpreter; we shall follow the Vulgate version of the Hebrew original. But
even this rendering has been explained in several different ways: Rosenmuller
and several conservative Protestant interpreters defend the meaning, "a woman
shall protect a man"; but such a motive would hardly induce the men of Israel to
return to God. The explanation "a woman shall seek a man" hardly agrees with the
text; besides, such an inversion of the natural order is presented in Isaias
4:1, as a sign of the greatest calamity. Ewald's rendering, "a woman shall
change into a man", is hardly faithful to the original text. Other commentators
see in the woman a type of the Synagogue or of the Church, in man the type of
God, so that they explain the prophecy as meaning, "God will dwell again in the
midst of the Synagogue (of the people of Israel)" or "the Church will protect
the earth with its valiant men". But the Hebrew text hardly suggests such a
meaning; besides, such an explanation renders the passage tautological: "Israel
shall return to its God, for Israel will love its God". Some recent writers
render the Hebrew original: "God creates a new thing upon the earth: the woman
(wife) returns to the man (her husband)". According to the old law (Deuteronomy
24:1-4; Jeremiah 3:1) the husband could not take back the wife once repudiated
by him; but the Lord will do something new by allowing the faithless wife, i.e.
the guilty nation, to return to the friendship of God. This explanation rests
upon a conjectural correction of the text; besides, it does not necessarily bear
the Messianic meaning which we expect in the passage.
The Greek Fathers generally follow the Septuagint version, "The Lord has created
salvation in a new plantation, men shall go about in safety"; but St. Athanasius
twice [9] combines Aquila's version "God has created a new thing in woman" with
that of the Septuagint, saying that the new plantation is Jesus Christ, and that
the new thing created in woman is the body of the Lord, conceived within the
virgin without the co-operation of man. St. Jerome too [10] understands the
prophetic text of the virgin conceiving the Messias. This meaning of the passage
satisfies the text and the context. As the Word Incarnate possessed from the
first moment of His conception all His perfections excepting those connected
with His bodily development, His mother is rightly said to "compass a man". No
need to point out that such a condition of a newly conceived child is rightly
called "a new thing upon earth". The context of the prophecy describes after a
short general introduction (30:1-3) Israel's future freedom and restoration in
four stanzas: 30:4-11, 12-22; 30:23; 31:14, 15-26; the first three stanzas end
with the hope of the Messianic time. The fourth stanza, too, must be expected to
have a similar ending. Moreover, the prophecy of Jeremias, uttered about 589
B.C. and understood in the sense just explained, agrees with the contemporary
Messianic expectations based on Isaias 7:14; 9:6; Micah 5:3. According to
Jeremias, the mother of Christ is to differ from other mothers in this, that her
child, even while within her womb, shall possess all those properties which
constitute real manhood [11]. The Old Testament refers indirectly to Mary in
those prophecies which predict the Incarnation of the Word of God.
II. OLD TESTAMENT TYPES AND FIGURES OF MARY
In order to be sure of the typical sense, it must be revealed, i.e. it must come
down to us through Scripture or tradition. Individual pious writers have
developed copious analogies between certain data of the Old Testament and
corresponding data of the New; however ingenious these developments may be, they
do not prove that God really intended to convey the corresponding truths in the
inspired text of the Old Testament. On the other hand, it must be kept in mind
that not all truths contained in either Scripture or tradition have been
explicitly proposed to the faithful as matters of belief by the explicit
definition of the Church.
According to the principle "Lex orandi est lex credenti" we must treat at least
with reverence the numberless suggestions contained in the official prayers and
liturgies of the Church. In this sense we must regard many of the titles
bestowed on Our Blessed Lady in her litany and in the "Ave maris stella". The
Antiphons and Responses found in the Offices recited on the various feasts of
Our Blessed Lady suggest a number of types of Mary that hardly could have been
brought so vividly to the notice of the Church's ministers in any other way. The
third antiphon of Lauds of the Feast of the Circumcision sees in "the bush that
was not burnt" (Exodus 3:2) a figure of Mary conceiving her Son without the loss
of her virginity. The second antiphon of Lauds of the same Office sees in
Gideon's fleece wet with dew while all the ground beside had remained dry
(Judges 6:37-38) a type of Mary receiving in her womb the Word Incarnate [12].
The Office of the Blessed Virgin applies to Mary many passages concerning the
spouse in the Canticle of Canticles [13] and also concerning Wisdom in the Book
of Proverbs 8:22-31 [14]. The application to Mary of a "garden enclosed, a
fountain sealed up" mentioned in Canticles 4:12 is only a particular instance of
what has been said above. [15] Besides, Sara, Debbora, Judith, and Esther are
variously used as figures of Mary; the ark of the Covenant, over which the
presence of God manifested itself, is used as the figure of Mary carrying God
Incarnate within her womb. But especially Eve, the mother of all the living
(Genesis 3:20), is considered as a type of Mary who is the mother of all the
living in the order of grace [16].
III. MARY IN THE GOSPELS
The reader of the Gospels is at first surprised to find so little about Mary;
but this obscurity of Mary in the Gospels has been studied at length by Blessed
Peter Canisius [17], Auguste Nicolas [18], Cardinal Newman [19], and Very Rev.
J. Spencer Northcote [20]. In the commentary on the "Magnificat", published
1518, even Luther expresses the belief that the Gospels praise Mary sufficiently
by calling her (eight times) the Mother of Jesus. In the following paragraphs we
shall briefly group together what we know of Our Blessed Lady's life before the
birth of her Divine Son, during the hidden life of Our Lord, during His public
life and after His resurrection.
Mary's Davidic ancestry
St. Luke (2:4) says that St. Joseph went from Nazareth to Bethlehem to be
enrolled, "because he was of the house and family of David". As if to exclude
all doubt concerning the Davidic descent of Mary, the Evangelist (1:32, 69)
states that the child born of Mary without the intervention of man shall be
given "the throne of David His father", and that the Lord God has "raised up a
horn of salvation to us in the house of David his servant". [21] St. Paul too
testifies that Jesus Christ "was made to him [God] of the seed of David,
according to the flesh" (Romans 1:3). If Mary were not of Davidic descent, her
Son conceived by the Holy Ghost could not be said to be "of the seed of David".
Hence commentators tell us that in the text "in the sixth month the angel
Gabriel was sent from God. . .to a virgin espoused to a man whose name was
Joseph, of the house of David" (Luke 1:26-27); the last clause "of the house of
David" does not refer to Joseph, but to the virgin who is the principal person
in the narrative; thus we have a direct inspired testimony to Mary's Davidic
descent. [22]
While commentators generally agree that the genealogy found at the beginning of
the first Gospel is that of St. Joseph, Annius of Viterbo proposes the opinion,
already alluded to by St. Augustine, that St. Luke's genealogy gives the
pedigree of Mary. The text of the third Gospel (3:23) may be explained so as to
make Heli the father of Mary: "Jesus. . .being the son (as it was supposed of
Joseph) of Heli", or "Jesus. . .being the son of Joseph, as it was supposed, the
son of Heli" (Lightfoot, Bengel, etc.), or again "Jesus. . .being as it was
supposed the son of Joseph, who was [the son-in-law] of Heli" [23]. In these
explanations the name of Mary is not mentioned explicitly, but it is implied;
for Jesus is the Son of Heli through Mary.
Her parents
Though few commentators adhere to this view of St. Luke's genealogy, the name of
Mary's father, Heli, agrees with the name given to Our Lady's father in a
tradition founded upon the report of the Protoevangelium of James, an apocryphal
Gospel which dates from the end of the second century. According to this
document the parents of Mary are Joachim and Anna. Now, the name Joachim is only
a variation of Heli or Eliachim, substituting one Divine name (Yahweh) for the
other (Eli, Elohim). The tradition as to the parents of Mary, found in the
Gospel of James, is reproduced by St. John Damascene [24], St. Gregory of Nyssa
[25], St. Germanus of Constantinople [26], pseudo-Epiphanius [27],
pseudo-Hilarius [28], and St. Fulbert of Chartres [29]. Some of these writers
add that the birth of Mary was obtained by the fervent prayers of Joachim and
Anna in their advanced age. As Joachim belonged to the royal family of David, so
Anna is supposed to have been a descendant of the priestly family of Aaron; thus
Christ the Eternal King and Priest sprang from both a royal and priestly family
[30].
The hometown of Mary's parents
According to Luke 1:26, Mary lived in Nazareth, a city in Galilee, at the time
of the Annunciation. A certain tradition maintains that she was conceived and
born in the same house in which the Word became flesh [31]. Another tradition
based on the Gospel of James regards Sephoris as the earliest home of Joachim
and Anna, though they are said to have lived later on in Jerusalem, in a house
called by St. Sophronius of Jerusalem [32] Probatica. Probatica, a name probably
derived from the sanctuary's nearness to the pond called Probatica or Bethsaida
in John 5:2. It was here that Mary was born. About a century later, about A.D.
750, St. John Damascene [33] repeats the statement that Mary was born in the
Probatica.
It is said that, as early as in the fifth century the empress Eudoxia built a
church over the place where Mary was born, and where her parents lived in their
old age. The present Church of St. Anna stands at a distance of only about 100
Feet from the pool Probatica. In 1889, 18 March, was discovered the crypt which
encloses the supposed burying-place of St. Anna. Probably this place was
originally a garden in which both Joachim and Anna were laid to rest. At their
time it was still outside of the city walls, about 400 feet north of the Temple.
Another crypt near St. Anna's tomb is the supposed birthplace of the Blessed
Virgin; hence it is that in early times the church was called St. Mary of the
Nativity [34]. In the Cedron Valley, near the road leading to the Church of the
Assumption, is a little sanctuary containing two altars which are said to stand
over the burying-places of Sts. Joachim and Anna; but these graves belong to the
time of the Crusades [35]. In Sephoris too the Crusaders replaced by a large
church an ancient sanctuary which stood over the legendary house of Sts. Joachim
and Anna. After 1788 part of this church was restored by the Franciscan Fathers.
Her Immaculate Conception
The Immaculate Conception of Our Blessed Lady has been treated in a SPECIAL
ARTICLE.
The birth of Mary
As to the place of the birth of Our Blessed Lady, there are three different
traditions to be considered.
First, the event has been placed in Bethlehem. This opinion rests on the
authority of the following witnesses: it is expressed in a writing entitled "De
nativ. S. Mariae" [36] inserted after the works of St. Jerome; it is more or
less vaguely supposed by the Pilgrim of Piacenza, erroneously called Antoninus
Martyr, who wrote about A.D. 580 [37]; finally the popes Paul II (1471), Julius
II (1507), Leo X (1519), Paul III (1535), Pius IV (1565), Sixtus V (1586), and
Innocent XII (1698) in their Bulls concerning the Holy House of Loreto say that
the Blessed Virgin was born, educated, and greeted by the angel in the Holy
House. But these pontiffs hardly wish to decide an historical question; they
merely express the opinion of their respective times.
A second tradition placed the birth of Our Blessed Lady in Sephoris, about three
miles north of Bethlehem, the Roman Diocaesarea, and the residence of Herod
Antipas till late in the life of Our Lord. The antiquity of this opinion may be
inferred from the fact that under Constantine a church was erected in Sephoris
to commemorate the residence of Joachim and Anna in that place [38]. St.
Epiphanius speaks of this sanctuary [39]. But this merely shows that Our Blessed
Lady may have lived in Sephoris for a time with her parents, without forcing us
to believe that she had been born there.
The third tradition, that Mary was born in Jerusalem, is the most probable one.
We have seen that it rests upon the testimony of St. Sophronius, St. John
Damascene, and upon the evidence of the recent finds in the Probatica. The Feast
of Our Lady's Nativity was not celebrated in Rome till toward the end of the
seventh century; but two sermons found among the writings of St. Andrew of Crete
(d. 680) suppose the existence of this feat, and lead one to suspect that it was
introduced at an earlier date into some other churches [40]. In 799 the 10th
canon of the Synod of Salzburg prescribes four feasts in honour of the Mother of
God: the Purification, 2 February; the Annunciation, 25 March; the Assumption,
15 August; the Nativity, 8 September.
The Presentation of Mary
According to Exodus 13:2 and 13:12, all the Hebrew first-born male children had
to be presented in the Temple. Such a law would lead pious Jewish parents to
observe the same religious rite with regard to other favourite children. This
inclines one to believe that Joachim and Anna presented in the Temple their
child, which they had obtained by their long, fervent prayers.
As to Mary, St. Luke (1:34) tells us that she answered the angel announcing the
birth of Jesus Christ: "how shall this be done, because I know not man". These
words can hardly be understood, unless we assume that Mary had made a vow of
virginity; for, when she spoke them, she was betrothed to St. Joseph. [41] The
most opportune occasion for such a vow was her presentation in the Temple. As
some of the Fathers admit that the faculties of St. John the Baptist were
prematurely developed by a special intervention of God's power, we may admit a
similar grace for the child of Joachim and Anna. [42]
But what has been said does not exceed the certainty of antecedently probable
pious conjectures. The consideration that Our Lord could not have refused His
Blessed Mother any favours which depended merely on His munificence does not
exceed the value of an a priori argument. Certainty in this question must depend
on external testimony and the teaching of the Church.
Now, the Protoevangelium of James (7-8), and the writing entitled "De nativit.
Mariae" (7-8), [43] state that Joachim and Anna, faithful to a vow they had
made, presented the child Mary in the Temple when she was three years old; that
the child herself mounted the Temple steps, and that she made her vow of
virginity on this occasion. St. Gregory of Nyssa [44] and St. Germanus of
Constantinople [45] adopt this report; it is also followed by pseudo-Gregory of
Nazianzus in his "Christus patiens". [46] Moreover, the Church celebrates the
Feast of the Presentation, though it does not specify at what age the child Mary
was presented in the Temple, when she made her vow of virginity, and what were
the special natural and supernatural gifts with which God endowed her. The feast
is mentioned for the first time in a document of Manuel Commenus, in 1166; from
Constantinople the feast must have been introduced into the western Church,
where we find it at the papal court at Avignon in 1371; about a century later,
Pope Sixtus IV introduced the Office of the Presentation, and in 1585 Pope
Sixtus V extended the Feast of the Presentation to the whole Church.
Her betrothal to Joseph
The apocryphal writings to which we referred in the last paragraph state that
Mary remained in the Temple after her presentation in order to be educated with
other Jewish children. There she enjoyed ecstatic visions and daily visits of
the holy angels.
When she was fourteen, the high priest wished to send her home for marriage.
Mary reminded him of her vow of virginity, and in his embarrassment the high
priest consulted the Lord. Then he called all the young men of the family of
David, and promised Mary in marriage to him whose rod should sprout and become
the resting place of the Holy Ghost in form of a dove. It was Joseph who was
privileged in this extraordinary way.
We have already seen that St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Germanus of Constantinople,
and pseudo-Gregory Nazianzen seem to adopt these legends. Besides, the emperor
Justinian allowed a basilica to be built on the platform of the former Temple in
memory of Our Lady's stay in the sanctuary; the church was called the New St.
Mary's so as to distinguish it from the Church of the Nativity. It seems to be
the modern mosque el-Aksa. [47]
On the other hand, the Church is silent as to Mary's stay in the Temple. St.
Ambrose [48], describing Mary's life before the Annunciation, supposes expressly
that she lived in the house of her parents. All the descriptions of the Jewish
Temple which can claim any scientific value leave us in ignorance as to any
localities in which young girls might have been educated. Joas's stay in the
Temple till the age of seven does not favour the supposition that young girls
were educated within the sacred precincts; for Joas was king, and was forced by
circumstances to remain in the Temple (cf. 2 Kings 11:3). What 2 Maccabees 3:19,
says about "the virgins also that were shut up" does not show that any of them
were kept in the Temple buildings. If the prophetess Anna is said (Luke 2:37)
not to have "departed from the temple, by fastings and prayer serving night and
day", we do not suppose that she actually lived in one of he temple rooms. [49]
As the house of Joachim and Anna was not far distant from the Temple, we may
supposed that the holy child Mary was often allowed to visit the sacred
buildings in order to satisfy her devotion.
Jewish maidens were considered marriageable at the age of twelve years and six
months, though the actual age of the bride varied with circumstances. The
marriage was preceded by the betrothal, after which the bride legally belonged
to the bridegroom, though she did not live with him till about a year later,
when the marriage used to be celebrated. All this agrees well with the language
of the Evangelists. St. Luke (1:27) calls Mary "a virgin espoused to a man whose
name was Joseph"; St. Matthew (1:18) says, when as his mother Mary was espoused
to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child, of the Holy
Ghost". As we know of no brother of Mary, we must suppose that she was an
heiress, and was obliged by the law of Numbers 36:6 to marry a member of her
tribe. The Law itself prohibited marriage within certain degrees of
relationship, so that the marriage of even an heiress was left more or less to
choice.
According to Jewish custom, the union between Joseph and Mary had to be arranged
by the parents of St. Joseph. One might ask why Mary consented to her betrothal,
though she was bound by her vow of virginity. As she had obeyed God's
inspiration in making her vow, so she obeyed God's inspiration in becoming the
affianced bride of Joseph. Besides, it would have been singular among the Jews
to refuse betrothal or marriage; for all the Jewish maidens aspired after
marriage as the accomplishment of a natural duty. Mary trusted the Divine
guidance implicitly, and thus was certain that her vow would be kept even in her
married state.
The Annunciation
The Annunciation has been treated in a SPECIAL ARTICLE.
The Visitation
According to Luke 1:36, the angel Gabriel told Mary at the time of the
annunciation, "behold, thy cousin Elizabeth, she also hath conceived a son in
her old age, and this is the sixth month with her that was called barren".
Without doubting the truth of the angel's words, Mary determined at once to add
to the pleasure of her pious relative. [50] Hence the Evangelist continues
(1:39): "And Mary, rising up in those days, went into the hill country with
haste into a city of Juda. And she entered into the house of Zachary, and
saluted Elizabeth." Though Mary must have told Joseph of her intended visit, it
is hard to determine whether he accompanied her; if the time of the journey
happened to coincide with one of the festal seasons at which the Israelites had
to go to the Temple, there would be little difficulty about companionship.
The place of Elizabeth's home has been variously located by different writers:
it has been placed in Machaerus, over ten miles east of the Dead Sea, or in
Hebron, or again in the ancient sacerdotal city of Jutta, about seven miles
south of Hebron, or finally in Ain-Karim, the traditional St. John-in-the
Mountain, nearly four miles west of Jerusalem. [51] But the first three places
possess no traditional memorial of the birth or life of St. John; besides,
Machaerus was not situated in the mountains of Juda; Hebron and Jutta belonged
after the Babylonian captivity to Idumea, while Ain-Karim lies in the "hill
country" [52] mentioned in the inspired text of St. Luke.
After her journey of about thirty hours, Mary "entered into the house of
Zachary, and saluted Elizabeth" (Luke 1:40). According to tradition, Elizabeth
lived at the time of the visitation not in her city home, but in her villa,
about ten minutes distant from the city; formerly this place was marked by an
upper and lower church. In 1861 the present small Church of the Visitation was
erected on the ancient foundations.
"And it came to pass that, when Elizabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the
infant leaped in her womb." It was at this moment that God fulfilled the promise
made by the angel to Zachary (Luke 1:15), "and he shall be filled with the Holy
Ghost, even from his mother's womb"; in other words, the infant in Elizabeth's
womb was cleansed from the stain of original sin. The fullness of the Holy Ghost
in the infant overflowed, as it were, into the soul of his mother: "and
Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost" (Luke 1:41). Thus both child and
mother were sanctified by the presence of Mary and the Word Incarnate [53];
filled as she was with the Holy Ghost, Elizabeth "cried out with a loud voice,
and said: Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.
And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For
behold, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in my ears, the infant in
my womb leaped for joy. And blessed art thou that hast believed, because those
things shall be accomplished that were spoken to thee by the Lord" (Luke
1:42-45). Leaving to commentators the full explanation of the preceding passage,
we draw attention only to two points:
Elizabeth begins her greeting with the words with which the angel had finished
his salutation, thus showing that both spoke in the same Holy Spirit;
Elizabeth is the first to call Mary by her most honourable title "Mother of
God".
Mary's answer is the canticle of praise commonly called "Magnificat" from the
first word of its Latin text; the "Magnificat" has been treated in a SEPARATE
ARTICLE.
The Evangelist closes his account of the Visitation with the words: "And Mary
abode with her about three months; and she returned to her own house" (Luke
1:56). Many see in this brief statement of the third gospel an implied hint that
Mary remained in the house of Zachary till the birth of John the Baptist, while
others deny such an implication. As the Feast of the Visitation was placed by
the 43rd canon of the Council of Basle (A.D. 1441) on 2 July, the day following
the Octave of the Feast of St. John Baptist, it has been inferred that Mary may
have remained with Elizabeth until after the child's circumcision; but there is
no further proof for this supposition. Though the visitation is so accurately
described in the third Gospel, its feast does not appear to have been kept till
the thirteenth century, when it was introduced through the influence of the
Franciscans; in 1389 it was officially instituted by Urban VI.
Mary's pregnancy becomes known to Joseph
After her return from Elizabeth, Mary "was found with child, of the Holy Ghost"
(Matthew 1:18). As among the Jews, betrothal was a real marriage, the use of
marriage after the time of espousals presented nothing unusual among them. Hence
Mary's pregnancy could not astonish anyone except St. Joseph. As he did not know
the mystery of the Incarnation, the situation must have been extremely painful
both to him and to Mary. The Evangelist says: "Whereupon Joseph her husband
being a just man, and not willing publicly to expose her, was minded to put her
away privately" (Matthew 1:19). Mary left the solution of the difficulty to God,
and God informed the perplexed spouse in His own time of the true condition of
Mary. While Joseph "thought on these things, behold the angel of the Lord
appeared to him in his sleep, saying: Joseph, son of David, fear not to take
unto thee Mary thy wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy
Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus. For
He shall save His people from their sins" (Matthew 1:20-21).
Not long after this revelation, Joseph concluded the ritual marriage contract
with Mary. The Gospel simply says: "Joseph rising up from sleep did as the angel
of the Lord had commanded him, and took unto him his wife" (Matthew 1:24). While
it is certain that between the betrothal and the marriage at least three months
must have elapsed, during which Mary stayed with Elizabeth, it is impossible to
determine the exact length of time between the two ceremonies. We do not know
how long after the betrothal the angel announced to Mary the mystery of the
Incarnation, nor do we know how long the doubt of Joseph lasted, before he was
enlightened by the visit of the angel. From the age at which Hebrew maidens
became marriageable, it is possible that Mary gave birth to her Son when she was
about thirteen or fourteen years of age. No historical document tells us how old
she actually was at the time of the Nativity.
The journey to Bethlehem
St. Luke (2:1-5) explains how Joseph and Mary journeyed from Nazareth to
Bethlehem in obedience to a decree of Caesar Augustus which prescribed a general
enrolment. The questions connected with this decree have been considered in the
article BIBLICAL CHRONOLOGY. There are various reasons why Mary should have
accompanied Joseph on this journey; she may not wished to lose Joseph's
protection during the critical time of her pregnancy, or she may have followed a
special Divine inspiration impelling her to go in order to fulfil the prophecies
concerning her Divine Son, or again she may have been compelled to go by the
civil law either as an heiress or to settle the personal tax payable by women
over twelve years of age. [54]
As the enrolment had brought a multitude of strangers to Bethlehem, Mary and
Joseph found no room in the caravansary and had to take lodging in a grotto
which served as a shelter for animals. [55]
Mary gives birth to Our Lord
"And it came to pass, that when they were there, her days were accomplished,
that she should be delivered" (Luke 2:6); this language leaves it uncertain
whether the birth of Our Lord took place immediately after Joseph and Mary had
taken lodging in the grotto, or several days later. What is said about the
shepherds "keeping the night watches over their flock" (Luke 2:8) shows that
Christ was born in the night time.
After bringing forth her Son, Mary "wrapped Him up in swaddling clothes, and
laid Him in a manger" (Luke 2:7), a sign that she did not suffer from the pain
and weakness of childbirth. This inference agrees with the teaching of some of
the principal Fathers and theologians: St. Ambrose [56], St. Gregory of Nyssa
[57], St. John Damascene [58], the author of Christus patiens [59], St. Thomas
[60], etc. It was not becoming that the mother of God should be subject to the
punishment pronounced in Genesis 3:16, against Eve and her sinful daughters.
Shortly after the birth of the child, the shepherds, obedient to the angelic
invitation, arrived in the grotto, "and they found Mary and Joseph, and the
infant lying in the manger" (Luke 2:16). We may suppose that the shepherds
spread the glad tidings they had received during the night among their friends
in Bethlehem, and that the Holy Family was received by one of its pious
inhabitants into more suitable lodgings.
The Circumcision of Our Lord
"And after eight days were accomplished, that the child should be circumcised,
his name was called Jesus" (Luke 2:21). The rite of circumcision was performed
either in the synagogue or in the home of the Child; it is impossible to
determine where Our Lord's Circumcision took place. At any rate, His Blessed
Mother must have been present at the ceremony.
The Presentation
According to the law of Leviticus 12:2-8, the Jewish mother of a male child had
to present herself forty days after his birth for legal purification; according
to Exodus 13:2, and Numbers 18:15, the first-born son had to be presented on the
same occasion. Whatever reasons Mary and the Infant might have for claiming an
exemption, they complied with the law. But, instead of offering a lamb, they
presented the sacrifice of the poor, consisting of a pair of turtle-doves or two
young pigeons. In 2 Corinthians 8:9, St. Paul informs the Corinthians that Jesus
Christ "being rich. . .became poor, for your sakes, that through his poverty you
might be rich". Even more acceptable to God than Mary's poverty was the
readiness with which she surrendered her Divine Son to the good pleasure of His
Heavenly Father.
After the ceremonial rites had been complied with, holy Simeon took the Child in
his arms, and thanked God for the fulfilment of his promises; he drew attention
to the universality of the salvation that was to come through Messianic
redemption "prepared before the face of all peoples: a light to the revelation
of the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel" (Luke 2:31 sq.). Mary and
Joseph now began to know their Divine Child more fully; they "were wondering at
those things which were spoken concerning him" (Luke 2:33). As if to prepare Our
Blessed Mother for the mystery of the cross, holy Simeon said to her: "Behold
this child is set for the fall, and for the resurrection of many in Israel, and
for a sign which shall be contradicted. And thy own soul a sword shall pierce,
that, out of many hearts, thoughts may be revealed" (Luke 2:34-35). Mary had
suffered her first great sorrow at the time when Joseph was hesitating about
taking her for his wife; she experienced her second great sorrow when she heard
the words of holy Simeon.
Though the incident of the prophetess Anna had a more general bearing, for she
"spoke of him (the Child) to all that looked for the redemption of Israel" (Luke
2:38), it must have added greatly to the wonder of Joseph and Mary. The
Evangelist's concluding remark, "after they had performed all things according
to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their city Nazareth"
(Luke 2:39), has been variously interpreted by commentators; as to the order of
events, see the article CHRONOLOGY OF THE LIFE OF JESUS CHRIST.
The visit of the Magi
After the Presentation, the Holy Family either returned to Bethlehem directly,
or went first to Nazareth, and then moved into the city of David. At any rate,
after the "wise men from the east" had followed the Divine guidance to
Bethlehem, "entering into the house, they found the child with Mary his mother,
and falling down they adored him; and opening their treasures, they offered him
gifts; gold, frankincense, and myrrh" (Matthew 2:11). The Evangelist does not
mention Joseph; not that he was not present, but because Mary occupies the
principal place near the Child. How Mary and Joseph disposed of the presents
offered by their wealthy visitors has not been told us by the Evangelists.
The flight to Egypt
Soon after the departure of the wise men Joseph received the message from the
angel of the Lord to fly into Egypt with the Child and His mother on account of
the evil designs of Herod; the holy man's ready obedience is briefly described
by the Evangelist in the words: "who arose, and took the child and his mother by
night, and retired into Egypt" (Matthew 2:14). Persecuted Jews had ever sought a
refuge in Egypt (cf. 1 Kings 11:40; 2 Kings 25:26); about the time of Christ
Jewish colonists were especially numerous in the land of the Nile [61];
according to Philo [62] they numbered at least a million. In Leontopolis, in the
district of Heliopolis, the Jews had a temple (160 B.C.-A.D. 73) which rivalled
in splendour the temple in Jerusalem. [63] The Holy Family might therefore
expect to find in Egypt a certain amount of help and protection.
On the other hand, it required a journey of at least ten days from Bethlehem to
reach the nearest habitable districts of Egypt. We do not know by what road the
Holy Family effected its flight; they may have followed the ordinary road
through Hebron; or they may have gone by way of Eleutheropolis and Gaza, or
again they may have passed west of Jerusalem towards the great military road of
Joppe.
There is hardly any historical document which will assist us in determining
where the Holy Family lived in Egypt, nor do we know how long the enforced exile
lasted. [64]
When Joseph received from the angel the news of Herod's death and the command to
return into the land of Israel, he "arose, and took the child and his mother,
and came into the land of Israel" (Matthew 2:21). The news that Archelaus ruled
in Judea prevented Joseph from settling in Bethlehem, as had been his intention;
"warned in sleep [by the angel, he] retired into the quarters of Galilee. And
coming he dwelt in a city called Nazareth" (Matthew 2:22-23). In all these
details Mary simply followed the guidance of Joseph, who in his turn received
the Divine manifestations as head of the Holy Family. There is no need to point
out the intense sorrow which Mary suffered on account of the early persecution
of the Child.
The Holy Family in Nazareth
The life of the Holy Family in Nazareth was that of the ordinary poor tradesman.
According to Matthew 13:55, the townsfolk asked "Is not this the carpenter's
son?"; the question, as expressed in the second Gospel (Mark 6:3), shows a
slight variation, "Is not this the carpenter?" While Joseph gained the
livelihood for the Holy Family by his daily work, Mary attended to the various
duties of housekeeper. St. Luke (2:40) briefly says of Jesus: "And the child
grew, and waxed strong, full of wisdom; and the grace of God was in him". The
weekly Sabbath and the annual great feasts interrupted the daily routine of life
in Nazareth.
The finding of Our Lord in the Temple
According to the law of Exodus 23:17, only the men were obliged to visit the
Temple on the three solemn feasts of the year; but the women often joined the
men to satisfy their devotion. St. Luke (2:41) informs us that "his [the
child's] parents went every year to Jerusalem, at the solemn day of the pasch".
Probably the Child Jesus was left in the home of friends or relatives during the
days of Mary's absence. According to the opinion of some writers, the Child did
not give any sign of His Divinity during the years of His infancy, so as to
increase the merits of Joseph's and Mary's faith based on what they had seen and
heard at the time of the Incarnation and the birth of Jesus. Jewish Doctors of
the Law maintained that a boy became a son of the law at the age of twelve years
and one day; after that he was bound by the legal precepts.
The evangelist supplies us here with the information that, "when he was twelve
years old, they going up into Jerusalem, according to the custom of the feast,
and having fulfilled the days, when they returned, the child Jesus remained in
Jerusalem, and his parents knew it not" (Luke 2:42-43). Probably it was after
the second festal day that Joseph and Mary returned with the other Galilean
pilgrims; the law did not require a longer sojourn in the Holy City. On the
first day the caravan usually made a four hours' journey, and rested for the
night in Beroth on the northern boundary of the former Kingdom of Juda. The
crusaders built in this place a beautiful Gothic church to commemorate Our
Lady's sorrow when she "sought him [her child] among their kinsfolks and
acquaintance, and not finding him,. . .returned into Jerusalem, seeking him"
(Luke 2:44-45). The Child was not found among the pilgrims who had come to
Beroth on their first day's journey; nor was He found on the second day, when
Joseph and Mary returned to Jerusalem; it was only on the third day that they
"found him [Jesus] in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, hearing
them, and asking them questions. . .And seeing him, they wondered. And his
mother said to him: Son, why hast thou done so to us? behold thy father and I
have sought thee sorrowing" (Luke 2:40-48). Mary's faith did not allow her to
fear a mere accident for her Divine Son; but she felt that His behaviour had
changed entirely from His customary exhibition of docility and subjection. The
feeling caused the question, why Jesus had treated His parents in such a way.
Jesus simply answered: "How is it that you sought me? did you not know, that I
must be about my father's business?" (Luke 2:49). Neither Joseph nor Mary
understood these words as a rebuke; "they understood not the word that he spoke
to them" (Luke 2:50). It has been suggested by a recent writer that the last
clause may be understood as meaning, "they [i.e., the bystanders] understood not
the word he spoke unto them [i.e., to Mary and Joseph]".
The remainder of Our Lord's youth
After this, Jesus "went down with them, and came to Nazareth" where He began a
life of work and poverty, eighteen years of which are summed up by the
Evangelist in the few words, and he "was subject to them, and. . .advanced in
wisdom, and age, and grace with God and men" (Luke 2:51-52). The interior life
of Mary is briefly indicated by the inspired writer in the expression, "and his
mother kept all these words in her heart" (Luke 2:51). A similar expression had
been used in 2:19, "Mary kept all these words, pondering them in her heart".
Thus Mary observed the daily life of her Divine Son, and grew in His knowledge
and love by meditating on what she saw and heard. It has been pointed out by
certain writers that the Evangelist here indicates the last source from which he
derived the material contained in his first two chapters.
Mary's perpetual virginity
In connection with the study of Mary during Our Lord's hidden life, we meet the
questions of her perpetual virginity, of her Divine motherhood, and of her
personal sanctity. Her spotless virginity has been sufficiently considered in
the article on the Virgin Birth. The authorities there cited maintain that Mary
remained a virgin when she conceived and gave birth to her Divine Son, as well
as after the birth of Jesus. Mary's question (Luke 1:34), the angel's answer
(Luke 1:35, 37), Joseph's way of behaving in his doubt (Matthew 1:19-25),
Christ's words addressed to the Jews (John 8:19) show that Mary retained her
virginity during the conception of her Divine Son. [65]
As to Mary's virginity after her childbirth, it is not denied by St. Matthew's
expressions "before they came together" (1:18), "her firstborn son" (1:25), nor
by the fact that the New Testament books repeatedly refer to the "brothers of
Jesus". [66] The words "before they came together" mean probably, "before they
lived in the same house", referring to the time when they were merely betrothed;
but even if the words be understood of marital intercourse, they only state that
the Incarnation took place before any such intercourse had intervened, without
implying that it did occur after the Incarnation of the Son of God. [67]
The same must be said of the expression, "and he knew her not till she brought
forth her firstborn son" (Matthew 1:25); the Evangelist tells us what did not
happen before the birth of Jesus, without suggesting that it happened after his
birth. [68] The name "firstborn" applies to Jesus whether his mother remained a
virgin or gave birth to other children after Jesus; among the Jews it was a
legal name [69], so that its occurrence in the Gospel cannot astonish us.
Finally, the "brothers of Jesus" are neither the sons of Mary, nor the brothers
of Our Lord in the proper sense of the word, but they are His cousins or the
more or less near relatives. [70] The Church insists that in His birth the Son
of God did not lessen but consecrate the virginal integrity of His mother
(Secret in Mass of Purification). The Fathers express themselves in similar
language concerning this privilege of Mary. [71]
Mary's Divine motherhood
Mary's Divine motherhood is based on the teaching of the Gospels, on the
writings of the Fathers, and on the express definition of the Church. St.
Matthew (1:25) testifies that Mary "brought forth her first-born son" and that
He was called Jesus. According to St. John (1:15) Jesus is the Word made flesh,
the Word Who assumed human nature in the womb of Mary. As Mary was truly the
mother of Jesus, and as Jesus was truly God from the first moment of His
conception, Mary is truly the mother of God. Even the earliest Fathers did not
hesitate to draw this conclusion as may be seen in the writings of St. Ignatius
[72], St. Irenaeus [73], and Tertullian [74]. The contention of Nestorius
denying to Mary the title "Mother of God" [75] was followed by the teaching of
the Council of Ephesus proclaiming Mary to be Theotokos in the true sense of the
word. [76]
Mary's perfect sanctity
Some few patristic writers expressed their doubts as to the presence of minor
moral defects in Our Blessed Lady. [77] St. Basil, e.g., suggests that Mary
yielded to doubt on hearing the words of holy Simeon and on witnessing the
crucifixion. [78] St. John Chrysostom is of opinion that Mary would have felt
fear and trouble, unless the angel had explained the mystery of the Incarnation
to her, and that she showed some vainglory at the marriage feast in Cana and on
visiting her Son during His public life together with the brothers of the Lord.
[79] St. Cyril of Alexandria [80] speaks of Mary's doubt and discouragement at
the foot of the cross. But these Greek writers cannot be said to express an
Apostolic tradition, when they express their private and singular opinions.
Scripture and tradition agree in ascribing to Mary the greatest personal
sanctity; She is conceived without the stain of original sin; she shows the
greatest humility and patience in her daily life (Luke 1:38, 48); she exhibits
an heroic patience under the most trying circumstances (Luke 2:7, 35, 48; John
19:25-27). When there is question of sin, Mary must always be excepted. [81]
Mary's complete exemption from actual sin is confirmed by the Council of Trent
(Session VI, Canon 23): "If any one say that man once justified can during his
whole life avoid all sins, even venial ones, as the Church holds that the
Blessed Virgin did by special privilege of God, let him be anathema."
Theologians assert that Mary was impeccable, not by the essential perfection of
her nature, but by a special Divine privilege. Moreover, the Fathers, at least
since the fifth century, almost unanimously maintain that the Blessed Virgin
never experienced the motions of concupiscence.
The miracle in Cana
The evangelists connect Mary's name with three different events in Our Lord's
public life: with the miracle in Cana, with His preaching, and with His passion.
The first of these incidents is related in John 2:1-10.
There was a marriage feast in Cana of Galilee. . .and the mother of Jesus was
there. And Jesus also was invited, and his disciples, to the marriage. And the
wine failing, the mother of Jesus saith to him: They have no wine. And Jesus
saith to her: Woman, what is that to me and to thee? my hour is not yet come.
One naturally supposes that one of the contracting parties was related to Mary,
and that Jesus had been invited on account of his mother's relationship. The
couple must have been rather poor, since the wine was actually failing. Mary
wishes to save her friends from the shame of not being able to provide properly
for the guests, and has recourse to her Divine Son. She merely states their
need, without adding any further petition. In addressing women, Jesus uniformly
employs the word "woman" (Matthew 15:28; Luke 13:12; John 4:21; 8:10; 19:26;
20:15), an expression used by classical writers as a respectful and honourable
address. [82] The above cited passages show that in the language of Jesus the
address "woman" has a most respectful meaning. The clause "what is that to me
and to thee" renders the Greek ti emoi kai soi, which in its turn corresponds to
the Hebrew phrase mah li walakh. This latter occurs in Judges 11:12; 2 Samuel
16:10; 19:23; 1 Kings 17:18; 2 Kings 3:13; 9:18; 2 Chronicles 35:21. The New
Testament shows equivalent expressions in Matthew 8:29; Mark 1:24; Luke 4:34;
8:28; Matthew 27:19. The meaning of the phrase varies according to the character
of the speakers, ranging from a most pronounced opposition to a courteous
compliance. Such a variable meaning makes it hard for the translator to find an
equally variable equivalent. "What have I to do with thee", "this is neither
your nor my business", "why art thou troublesome to me", "allow me to attend to
this", are some of the renderings suggested. In general, the words seem to refer
to well or ill-meant importunity which they endeavour to remove. The last part
of Our Lord's answer presents less difficulty to the interpreter: "my hour is
not yet come", cannot refer to the precise moment at which the need of wine will
require the miraculous intervention of Jesus; for in the language of St. John
"my hour" or "the hour" denotes the time preordained for some important event
(John 4:21, 23; 5:25, 28; 7:30; 8:29; 12:23; 13:1; 16:21; 17:1). Hence the
meaning of Our Lord's answer is: "Why are you troubling me by asking me for such
an intervention? The divinely appointed time for such a manifestation has not
yet come"; or, "why are you worrying? has not the time of manifesting my power
come?" The former of these meanings implies that on account of the intercession
of Mary Jesus anticipated the time set for the manifestation of His miraculous
power [83]; the second meaning is obtained by understanding the last part of Our
Lord's words as a question, as was done by St. Gregory of Nyssa [84], and by the
Arabic version of Tatian's "Diatessaron" (Rome, 1888). [85] Mary understood her
Son's words in their proper sense; she merely warned the waiters, "Whatsoever he
shall say to you, do ye" (John 2:5). There can be no question of explaining
Jesus' answer in the sense of a refusal.
Mary during the apostolic life of Our Lord
During the apostolic life of Jesus, Mary effaced herself almost completely. Not
being called to aid her Son directly in His ministry, she did not wish to
interfere with His work by her untimely presence. In Nazareth she was regarded
as a common Jewish mother; St. Matthew (3:55-56; cf. Mark 6:3) introduces the
people of the town as saying: "Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his
mother called Mary, and his brethren James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Jude: and
his sisters, are they not all with us?" Since the people wish to lower Our
Lord's esteem by their language, we must infer that Mary belonged to the lower
social order of townspeople. The parallel passage of St. Mark reads, "Is not
this the carpenter?" instead of, "Is not this the carpenter's son?" Since both
evangelists omit the name of St. Joseph, we may infer that he had died before
this episode took place.
At first sight, it seems that Jesus Himself depreciated the dignity of His
Blessed Mother. When He was told: "Behold thy mother and thy brethren stand
without, seeking thee", He answered: "Who is my mother, and who are my brethren?
And stretching forth his hand towards his disciples, he said: Behold my mother
and my brethren. For whosoever shall do the will of my Father, that is in
heaven, he is my brother, and my sister, and my mother" (Matthew 12:47-50; cf.
Mark 3:31-35; Luke 8:19-21). On another occasion, "a certain woman from the
crowd, lifting up her voice, said to him: Blessed is the womb that bore thee,
and the paps that gave thee suck. But he said: Yea rather, blessed are they who
hear the word of God, and keep it" (Luke 11:27-28).
In reality, Jesus in both these passages places the bond that unites the soul
with God above the natural bond of parentage which unites the Mother of God with
her Divine Son. The latter dignity is not belittled; as men naturally appreciate
it more easily, it is employed by Our Lord as a means to make known the real
value of holiness. Jesus, therefore, really, praises His mother in a most
emphatic way; for she excelled the rest of men in holiness not less than in
dignity. [86] Most probably, Mary was found also among the holy women who
ministered to Jesus and His apostles during their ministry in Galilee (cf. Luke
8:2-3); the Evangelists do not mention any other public appearance of Mary
during the time of Jesus's journeys through Galilee or Judea. But we must
remember that when the sun appears, even the brightest stars become invisible.
Mary during the Passion of Our Lord
Since the Passion of Jesus Christ occurred during the paschal week, we naturally
expect to find Mary at Jerusalem. Simeon's prophecy found its fulfilment
principally during the time of Our Lord's suffering. According to a tradition,
His Blessed Mother met Jesus as He was carrying His cross to Golgotha. The
Itinerarium of the Pilgrim of Bordeaux describes the memorable sites which the
writer visited A.D. 333, but it does not mention any locality sacred to this
meeting of Mary and her Divine Son. [87] The same silence prevails in the
so-called Peregrinatio Silviae which used to be assigned to A.D. 385, but has
lately been placed in A.D. 533-540. [88] But a plan of Jerusalem, dating from
the year 1308, shows a Church of St. John the Baptist with the inscription
"Pasm. Vgis.", Spasmus Virginis, the swoon of the Virgin. During the course of
the fourteenth century Christians began to locate the spots consecrated by the
Passion of Christ, and among these was the place was the place where Mary is
said to have fainted at the sight of her suffering Son. [89] Since the fifteenth
century one finds always "Sancta Maria de Spasmo" among the Stations of the Way
of the Cross, erected in various parts of Europe in imitation of the Via
Dolorosa in Jerusalem. [90] That Our Blessed Lady should have fainted at the
sight of her Son's sufferings, hardly agrees with her heroic behaviour under the
cross; still, we may consider her woman and mother in her meeting with her Son
on the way to Golgotha, while she is the Mother of God at the foot of the cross.
Mary's spiritual motherhood
While Jesus was hanging on the cross, "there stood by the cross of Jesus, his
mother, and his mother's sister, Mary Cleophas, and Mary Magdalen. When Jesus
therefore had seen his mother and the disciple standing whom he loved, he saith
to his mother: Woman, behold thy son. After that, he saith to the disciple:
Behold thy mother. And from that hour, the disciple took her to his own" (John
19:25-27). The darkening of the sun and the other extraordinary phenomena in
nature must have frightened the enemies of Our Lord sufficiently so as not to
interfere with His mother and His few friends standing at the foot of the cross.
In the meantime, Jesus had prayed for His enemies, and had promised pardon to
the penitent thief; now, He took compassion on His desolate mother, and provided
for her future. If St. Joseph had been still alive, or if Mary had been the
mother of those who are called Our Lord's brethren or sisters in the gospels,
such a provision would not have been necessary. Jesus uses the same respectful
title with which he had addressed his mother at the marriage feast in Cana. Then
he commits Mary to John as his mother, and wishes Mary to consider John as her
son.
Among the early writers, Origen is the only one who considers Mary's motherhood
of all the faithful in this connection. According to him, Christ lives in his
perfect followers, and as Mary is the Mother of Christ, so she is mother of him
in whom Christ lives. Hence, according to Origen, man has an indirect right to
claim Mary as his mother, in so far as he identifies himself with Jesus by the
life of grace. [91] In the ninth century, George of Nicomedia [92] explains Our
Lord's words on the cross in such a way as to entrust John to Mary, and in John
all the disciples, making her the mother and mistress of all John's companions.
In the twelfth century Rupert of Deutz explained Our Lord's words as
establishing Mary's spiritual motherhood of men, though St. Bernard, Rupert's
illustrious contemporary, does not enumerate this privilege among Our Lady's
numerous titles. [93] After this time Rupert's explanation of Our Lord's words
on the cross became more and more common, so that in our day it has found its
way into practically all books of piety. [94]
The doctrine of Mary's spiritual motherhood of men is contained in the fact that
she is the antitype of Eve: Eve is our natural mother because she is the origin
of our natural life; so Mary is our spiritual mother because she is the origin
of our spiritual life. Again, Mary's spiritual motherhood rests on the fact that
Christ is our brother, being "the firstborn among many brethren" (Romans 8:29).
She became our mother at the moment she consent to the Incarnation of the Word,
the Head of the mystical body whose members we are; and she sealed her
motherhood by consenting to the bloody sacrifice on the cross which is the
source of our supernatural life. Mary and the holy women (Matthew 17:56; Mark
15:40; Luke 23:49; John 19:25) assisted at the death of Jesus on the cross; she
probably remained during the taking down of His sacred body and during His
funeral. The following Sabbath was for her a time of grief and hope. The
eleventh canon of a council held in Cologne, in 1423, instituted against the
Hussites the feast of the Dolours of Our Blessed Lady, placing it on the Friday
following the third Sunday after Easter. In 1725 Benedict XIV extended the feast
to the whole Church, and placed it on the Friday in Passion Week. "And from that
hour, the disciple took her to his own" (John 19:27). Whether they lived in the
city of Jerusalem or elsewhere, cannot be determined from the Gospels.
Mary and Our Lord's Resurrection
The inspired record of the incidents connected with Christ's Resurrection do not
mention Mary; but neither do they pretend to give a complete account of all that
Jesus did or said. The Fathers too are silent as to Mary's share in the joys of
her Son's triumph over death. Still, St. Ambrose [95] states expressly: "Mary
therefore saw the Resurrection of the Lord; she was the first who saw it and
believed. Mary Magdalen too saw it, though she still wavered". George of
Nicomedia [96] infers from Mary's share in Our Lord's sufferings that before all
others and more than all she must have shared in the triumph of her Son. In the
twelfth century, an apparition of the risen Saviour to His Blessed Mother is
admitted by Rupert of Deutz [97], and also by Eadmer [98] St. Bernardin of Siena
[99], St. Ignatius of Loyola [100], Suarez [101], Maldonado [102], etc. [103]
That the risen Christ should have appeared first to His Blessed Mother, agrees
at least with our pious expectations.
Though the Gospels do not expressly tell us so, we may suppose that Mary was
present when Jesus showed himself to a number of disciples in Galilee and at the
time of His Ascension (cf. Matthew 28:7, 10, 16; Mark 16:7). Moreover, it is not
improbable that Jesus visited His Blessed Mother repeatedly during the forty
days after His Resurrection.
IV. MARY IN OTHER BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
Acts 1:14-2:4
According to the Book of Acts (1:14), after Christ's Ascension into Heaven the
apostles "went up into an upper room", and: "all these were persevering with one
mind in prayer with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his
brethren". In spite of her exalted dignity it was not Mary, but Peter who acted
as head of the assembly (1:15). Mary behaved in the upper room in Jerusalem as
she had behaved in the grotto at Bethlehem; in Bethlehem she had carried for the
Infant Jesus, in Jerusalem she nurtured the infant Church. The friends of Jesus
remained in the upper room till "the days of the Pentecost", when with "a sound
from heaven, as of a mighty wind coming. . .there appeared to them parted
tongues as it were of fire, and it sat upon every one of them, and they were all
filled with the Holy Ghost" (Acts 2:1-4). Though the Holy Ghost had descended
upon Mary in a special way at the time of the Incarnation, He now communicated
to her a new degree of grace. Perhaps, this Pentecostal grace gave to Mary the
strength of properly fulfilling her duties to the nascent Church and to her
spiritual children.
Galatians 4:4
As to the Epistles, the only direct reference to Mary is found in Galatians 4:4:
"But when the fulness of time was come, God sent his Son, made of a woman, made
under the law". Some Greek and Latin manuscripts, followed by several Fathers,
read gennomenon ek gynaikos instead of genomenon ek gynaikos, "born of a woman"
instead of "made of a woman". But this variant reading cannot be accepted. For
gennomenon is the present participle, and must be rendered, "being born of a
woman", so that it does not fit into the context. [104]
though the Latin variant rendering "natum" is the perfect participle, and does
not imply the inconveniences of its Greek original, St. Bede [105] rejects it,
on account of its less appropriate sense.
In Romans 1:3, which is to a certain extent a parallel of Galatians 4:4, St.
Paul writes genomenos ek stermatos Daveid kata sarka, i.e. "made of the seed
of David, according to the flesh".
Tertullian [106] points out that the word "made" implies more than the word
"born"; for it calls to mind the "Word made flesh", and establishes the
reality of the flesh made of the Virgin.
Furthermore, the Apostle employs the word "woman" in the phrase under
consideration, because he wishes to indicate merely the sex, without any
ulterior connotation. In reality, however, the idea of a man made of a woman
alone, suggests the virginal conception of the Son of God. St. Paul seems to
emphasize the true idea of the Incarnation of the Word; a true understanding of
this mystery safeguards both the Divinity and the real humanity of Jesus Christ.
[107]
The Apostle St. John never uses the name Mary when speaking of Our Blessed Lady;
he always refers to her as Mother of Jesus (John 2:1, 3; 19:25-26). In his last
hour, Jesus had established the relation of mother and son between Mary and
John, and a child does not usually address his mother by her first name.
Apocalypse 12:1-6
In the Apocalypse (12:1-16) occurs a passage singularly applicable to Our
Blessed Mother:
And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the
moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; and being with
child, she cried travailing in birth, and was in pain to be delivered. And
there was seen another sign in heaven: and behold a great red dragon, having
seven heads, and ten horns, and on his heads seven diadems; and his tail drew
the third part of the stars of heaven; and cast them to the earth; and the
dragon stood before the woman who was ready to be delivered; that when she
should be delivered, he might devour her son. And she brought forth a man
child, who was to rule all nations with an iron rod; and her son was taken up
to God, and to his throne. And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she
had a place prepared by God, that there they should feed her a thousand two
hundred sixty days.
The applicability of this passage to Mary is based on the following
considerations:
At least part of the verses refer to the mother whose son is to rule all the
nations with a rod of iron; according to Psalm 2:9, this is the Son of God,
Jesus Christ, Whose mother is Mary.
It was Mary's son that "was taken up to God, and to his throne" at the time of
His Ascension into heaven.
The dragon, or the devil of the earthly paradise (cf. Apocalypse 12:9; 20:2),
endeavoured to devour Mary's Son from the first moments of His birth, by
stirring up the jealousy of Herod and, later on, the enmities of the Jews.
Owing to her unspeakable privileges, Mary may well be described as "clothed
with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve
stars".
It is true that commentators generally understand the whole passage as
applying literally to the Church, and that part of the verses is better suited
to the Church than to Mary. But it must be kept in mind that Mary is both a
figure of the Church, and its most prominent member. What is said of the
Church, is in its own way true of Mary. Hence the passage of the Apocalypse
(12:5-6) does not refer to Mary merely by way of accommodation [108], but
applies to her in a truly literal sense which appears to be partly limited to
her, and partly extended to the whole Church. Mary's relation to the Church is
well summed up in the expression "collum corporis mystici" applied to Our Lady
by St. Bernardin of Siena. [109]
Cardinal Newman [110] considers two difficulties against the foregoing
interpretation of the vision of the woman and child: first, it is said to be
poorly supported by the Fathers; secondly, it is an anachronism to ascribe such
a picture of the Madonna to the apostolic age. As to the first exception, the
eminent writer says:
Christians have never gone to Scripture for proof of their doctrines, till
there was actual need, from the pressure of controversy; if in those times the
Blessed Virgin's dignity was unchallenged on all hands, as a matter of
doctrine, Scripture, as far as its argumentative matter was concerned, was
likely to remain a sealed book to them.
After developing this answer at length, the cardinal continues:
As to the second objection which I have supposed, so far from allowing it, I
consider that it is built upon a mere imaginary fact, and that the truth of
the matter lies in the very contrary direction. The Virgin and Child is not a
mere modern idea; on the contrary, it is represented again and again, as every
visitor to Rome is aware, in the paintings of the Catacombs. Mary is there
drawn with the Divine Infant in her lap, she with hands extended in prayer, he
with his hand in the attitude of blessing.
V. MARY IN THE EARLY CHRISTIAN DOCUMENTS
Thus far we have appealed to the writings or the remains of the early Christian
era in as far as they explain or illustrate the teaching of the Old Testament or
the New, concerning the Blessed Virgin. In the few following paragraphs we shall
have to draw attention to the fact that these same sources, to a certain extent,
supplement the Scriptural doctrine. In this respect they are the basis of
tradition; whether the evidence they supply suffices, in any given case, to
guarantee their contents as a genuine part of Divine revelation, must be
determined according to the ordinary scientific criteria followed by
theologians. Without entering on these purely theological questions, we shall
present this traditional material, first, in as far as it throws light on the
life of Mary after the day of Pentecost; secondly, in as far as it gives
evidence of the early Christian attitude to the Mother of God.
VI. POST-PENTECOSTAL LIFE OF MARY
On the day of Pentecost, the Holy Ghost had descended on Mary as He came on the
Apostles and Disciples gathered together in the upper room at Jerusalem. No
doubt, the words of St. John (19:27), "and from that hour the disciple took her
to his own", refer not merely to the time between Easter and Pentecost, but they
extend to the whole of Mary's later life. Still, the care of Mary did not
interfere with John's Apostolic ministry. Even the inspired records (Acts
8:14-17; Galatians 1:18-19; Acts 21:18) show that the apostle was absent from
Jerusalem on several occasions, though he must have taken part in the Council of
Jerusalem, A.D. 51 or 52. We may also suppose that in Mary especially were
verified the words of Acts 2:42: "And they were persevering in the doctrine of
the apostles, and in the communication of the breaking of bread, and in
prayers". Thus Mary was an example and a source of encouragement to the early
Christian community. At the same time, it must be confessed that we do not
possess any authentic documents bearing directly on Mary's post-Pentecostal
life.
Place of her life, death, and burial
As to tradition, there is some testimony for Mary's temporary residence in or
near Ephesus, but the evidence for her permanent home in Jerusalem is much
stronger.
Arguments for Ephesus
Mary's Ephesian residence rests on the following evidence:
(1) A passage in the synodal letter of the Council of Ephesus [111] reads:
"Wherefore also Nestorius, the instigator of the impious heresy, when he had
come to the city of the Ephesians, where John the Theologian and the Virgin
Mother of God St. Mary, estranging himself of his own accord from the gathering
of the holy Fathers and Bishops. . ." Since St. John had lived in Ephesus and
had been buried there [112], it has been inferred that the ellipsis of the
synodal letter means either, "where John. . .and the Virgin. . .Mary lived", or,
"where John. . .and the Virgin. . .Mary lived and are buried".
(2) Bar-Hebraeus or Abulpharagius, a Jacobite bishop of the thirteenth century,
relates that St. John took the Blessed Virgin with him to Patmos, then founded
the Church of Ephesus, and buried Mary no one knows where. [113]
(3) Benedict XIV [114] states that Mary followed St. John to Ephesus and died
there. He intended also to remove from the Breviary those lessons which mention
Mary's death in Jerusalem, but died before carrying out his intention. [115]
(4) Mary's temporary residence and death in Ephesus are upheld by such writers
as Tillemont [116], Calmet [117], etc.
(5) In Panaghia Kapoli, on a hill about nine or ten miles distant from Ephesus,
was discovered a house, or rather its remains, in which Mary is supposed to have
lived. The house was found, as it had been sought, according to the indications
given by Catherine Emmerich in her life of the Blessed Virgin.
Arguments against Ephesus
On closer inspection these arguments for Mary's residence or burial in Ephesus
are not unanswerable.
(1) The ellipsis in the synodal letter of the Council of Ephesus may be filled
out in such a way as not to imply the assumption that Our Blessed Lady either
lived or died in Ephesus. As there was in the city a double church dedicated to
the Virgin Mary and to St. John, the incomplete clause of the synodal letter may
be completed so as to read, "where John the Theologian and the Virgin. . .Mary
have a sanctuary". This explanation of the ambiguous phrase is one of the two
suggested in the margin in Labbe's Collect. Concil. (l.c.) [118]
(2) The words of Bar-Hebraeus contain two inaccurate statements; for St. John
did not found the Church of Ephesus, nor did he take Mary with him to Patmos.
St. Paul founded the Ephesian Church, and Mary was dead before John's exile in
Patmos. It would not be surprising, therefore, if the writer were wrong in what
he says about Mary's burial. Besides, Bar-Hebraeus belongs to the thirteenth
century; the earlier writers had been most anxious about the sacred places in
Ephesus; they mention the tomb of St. John and of a daughter of Philip [119],
but they say nothing about Mary's burying place.
(3) As to Benedict XIV, this great pontiff is not so emphatic about Mary's death
and burial in Ephesus, when he speaks about her Assumption in heaven.
(4) Neither Benedict XIV nor the other authorities who uphold the Ephesian
claims, advance any argument that has not been found inconclusive by other
scientific students of this question.
(5) The house found in Panaghia-Kapouli is of any weight only in so far as it is
connected with the visions of Catherine Emmerich. Its distance from the city of
Ephesus creates a presumption against its being the home of the Apostle St.
John. The historical value of Catherine's visions is not universally admitted.
Mgr. Timoni, Archbishop of Smyrna, writes concerning Panaghia-Kapouli: "Every
one is entire free to keep his personal opinion". Finally the agreement of the
condition of the ruined house in Panaghia-Kapouli with Catherine's description
does not necessarily prove the truth of her statement as to the history of the
building. [120]
Arguments against Jerusalem
Two considerations militate against a permanent residence of Our Lady in
Jerusalem: first, it has already been pointed out that St. John did not
permanently remain in the Holy City; secondly, the Jewish Christians are said to
have left Jerusalem during the periods of Jewish persecution (cf. Acts 8:1;
12:1). But as St. John cannot be supposed to have taken Our Lady with him on his
apostolic expeditions, we may suppose that he left her in the care of his
friends or relatives during the periods of his absence. And there is little
doubt that many of the Christians returned to Jerusalem, after the storms of
persecution had abated.
Arguments for Jerusalem
Independently of these considerations, we may appeal to the following reasons in
favour of Mary's death and burial in Jerusalem:
(1) In 451 Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, testified to the presence of Mary's
tomb in Jerusalem. It is strange that neither St. Jerome, nor the Pilgrim of
Bordeaux, nor again pseudo-Silvia give any evidence of such a sacred place. But
when the Emperor Marcion and the Empress Pulcheria asked Juvenal to send the
sacred remains of the Virgin Mary from their tomb in Gethsemani to
Constantinople, where they intended to dedicate a new church to Our Lady, the
bishop cited an ancient tradition saying that the sacred body had been assumed
into heaven, and sent to Constantinople only the coffin and the winding sheet.
This narrative rests on the authority of a certain Euthymius whose report was
inserted into a homily of St. John Damascene [121] now read in the second
Nocturn of the fourth day within the octave of the Assumption. Scheeben [122] is
of opinion that Euthymius's words are a later interpolation: they do not fit
into the context; they contain an appeal to pseudo-Dionysius [123] which are not
otherwise cited before the sixth century; and they are suspicious in their
connection with the name of Bishop Juvenal, who was charged with forging
documents by Pope St. Leo. [124] In his letter the pontiff reminds the bishop of
the holy places which he has under his very eyes, but does not mention the tomb
of Mary. [125] Allowing that this silence is purely incidental, the main
question remains, how much historic truth underlies the Euthymian account of the
words of Juvenal?
(2) Here must be mentioned too the apocryphal "Historia dormitionis et
assumptionis B.M.V.", which claims St. John for its author. [126] Tischendorf
believes that the substantial parts of the work go back to the fourth, perhaps
even to the second, century. [127] Variations of the original text appeared in
Arabic and Syriac, and in other languages; among these must be noted a work
called "De transitu Mariae Virg.", which appeared under the name of St. Melito
of Sardes. [128] Pope Gelasius enumerates this work among the forbidden books.
[129] The extraordinary incidents which these works connect with the death of
Mary do not concern us here; but they place her last moments and her burial in
or near Jerusalem.
(3) Another witness for the existence of a tradition placing the tomb of Mary in
Gethsemani is the basilica erected above the sacred spot, about the end of the
fourth or the beginning of the fifth century. The present church was built by
the Latins in the same place in which the old edifice had stood. [130]
(4) In the early part of the seventh century, Modestus, Bishop of Jerusalem,
located the passing of Our Lady on Mount Sion, in the house which contained the
Cenacle and the upper room of Pentecost. [131] At that time, a single church
covered the localities consecrated by these various mysteries. One must wonder
at the late evidence for a tradition which became so general since the seventh
century.
(5) Another tradition is preserved in the "Commemoratorium de Casis Dei"
addressed to Charlemagne. [132] It places the death of Mary on Mt. Olivet where
a church is said to commemorate this event. Perhaps the writer tried to connect
Mary's passing with the Church of the Assumption as the sister tradition
connected it with the cenacle. At any rate, we may conclude that about the
beginning of the fifth century there existed a fairly general tradition that
Mary had died in Jerusalem, and had been buried in Gethsemani. This tradition
appears to rest on a more solid basis than the report that Our Lady died and was
buried in or near Ephesus. As thus far historical documents are wanting, it
would be hard to establish the connection of either tradition with apostolic
times. [133]
Conclusion
It has been seen that we have no absolute certainty as to the place in which
Mary lived after the day of Pentecost. Though it is more probable that she
remained uninterruptedly in or near Jerusalem, she may have resided for a while
in the vicinity of Ephesus, and this may have given rise to the tradition of her
Ephesian death and burial. There is still less historical information concerning
the particular incidents of her life. St. Epiphanius [134] doubts even the
reality of Mary's death; but the universal belief of the Church does not agree
with the private opinion of St. Epiphanius. Mary's death was not necessarily the
effect of violence; it was undergone neither as an expiation or penalty, nor as
the effect of disease from which, like her Divine Son, she was exempt. Since the
Middle Ages the view prevails that she died of love, her great desire to be
united to her Son either dissolving the ties of body and soul, or prevailing on
God to dissolve them. Her passing away is a sacrifice of love completing the
dolorous sacrifice of her life. It is the death in the kiss of the Lord (in
osculo Domini), of which the just die. There is no certain tradition as to the
year of Mary's death. Baronius in his Annals relies on a passage in the
Chronicon of Eusebius for his assumption that Mary died A.D. 48. It is now
believed that the passage of the Chronicon is a later interpolation. [135]
Nirschl relies on a tradition found in Clement of Alexandria [136] and
Apollonius [137] which refers to a command of Our Lord that the Apostles were to
preach twelve years in Jerusalem and Palestine before going among the nations of
the world; hence he too arrives at the conclusion that Mary died A.D. 48.
Her assumption into heaven
The Assumption of Our Lady into heaven has been treated in a SPECIAL ARTICLE.
[138] The feast of the Assumption is most probably the oldest among all the
feasts of Mary properly so called. [139] As to art, the assumption was a
favourite subject of the school of Siena which generally represents Mary as
being carried to heaven in a mandorla.
VII. EARLY CHRISTIAN ATTITUDE TO THE MOTHER OF GOD
Her image and her name
Depictions of her image
No picture has preserved for us the true likeness of Mary. The Byzantine
representations, said to be painted by St. Luke, belong only to the sixth
century, and reproduce a conventional type. There are twenty-seven copies in
existence, ten of which are in Rome. [140] Even St. Augustine expresses the
opinion that the real external appearance of Mary is unknown to us, and that in
this regard we know and believe nothing. [141] The earliest picture of Mary is
that found in the cemetery of Priscilla; it represents the Virgin as if about to
nurse the Infant Jesus, and near her is the image of a prophet, Isaias or
perhaps Micheas. The picture belongs to the beginning of the second century, and
compares favourably with the works of art found in Pompeii. From the third
century we possess pictures of Our Lady present at the adoration of the Magi;
they are found in the cemeteries of Domitilla and Calixtus. Pictures belonging
to the fourth century are found in the cemetery of Saints Peter and Marcellinus;
in one of these she appears with her head uncovered, in another with her arms
half extended as if in supplication, and with the Infant standing before her. On
the graves of the early Christians, the saints figured as intercessors for their
souls, and among these saints Mary always held the place of honour. Besides the
paintings on the walls and on the sarcophagi, the Catacombs furnish also
pictures of Mary painted on gilt glass disks and sealed up by means of another
glass disk welded to the former. [142] Generally these pictures belong to the
third or fourth century. Quite frequently the legend MARIA or MARA accompanies
these pictures.
Use of her name
Towards the end of the fourth century, the name Mary becomes rather frequent
among Christians; this serves as another sign of the veneration they had for the
Mother of God. [143]
Conclusion
No one will suspect the early Christians of idolatry, as if they had paid
supreme worship to Mary's pictures or name; but how are we to explain the
phenomena enumerated, unless we suppose that the early Christians venerated Mary
in a special way? [144]
Nor can this veneration be said to be a corruption introduced in later times. It
has been seen that the earliest picture dates from the beginning of the second
century, so that within the first fifty years after the death of St. John the
veneration of Mary is proved to have flourished in the Church of Rome.
Early writings
For the attitude of the Churches of Asia Minor and of Lyons we may appeal to the
words of St. Irenaeus, a pupil of St. John's disciple Polycarp [145]; he calls
Mary our most eminent advocate. St. Ignatius of Antioch, part of whose life
reached back into apostolic times, wrote to the Ephesians (c. 18-19) in such a
way as to connect the mysteries of Our Lord's life more closely with those of
the Virgin Mary. For instance, the virginity of Mary, and her childbirth, are
enumerated with Christ's death, as forming three mysteries unknown to the devil.
The sub-apostolic author of the Epistle to Diognetus, writing to a pagan
inquirer concerning the Christian mysteries, describes Mary as the great
antithesis of Eve, and this idea of Our Lady occurs repeatedly in other writers
even before the Council of Ephesus. We have repeatedly appealed to the words of
St. Justin and Tertullian, both of whom wrote before the end of the second
century.
As it is admitted that the praises of Mary grow with the growth of the Christian
community, we may conclude in brief that the veneration of and devotion to Mary
began even in the time of the Apostles.
Publication information
Written by A.J. Maas. Transcribed by Michael T. Barrett. Dedicated to the
Immaculate Heart of Mary
The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XV. Published 1912. New York: Robert Appleton
Company. Nihil Obstat, October 1, 1912. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur.
+John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York
Bibliography
[1] Quaest. hebr. in Gen., P.L., XXIII, col. 943
[2] cf. Wis., ii, 25; Matt., iii, 7; xxiii, 33; John, viii, 44; I, John, iii,
8-12.
[3] Hebräische Grammatik, 26th edit., 402
[4] Der alte Orient und die Geschichtsforschung, 30
[5] cf. Jeremias, Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients, 2nd ed.,
Leipzig, 1906, 216; Himpel, Messianische Weissagungen im Pentateuch, Tubinger
theologische Quartalschrift, 1859; Maas, Christ in Type and Prophecy, I, 199
sqq., New York, 1893; Flunck, Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie, 1904, 641
sqq.; St. Justin, dial. c. Tryph., 100 (P.G., VI, 712); St. Iren., adv. haer.,
III, 23 (P.G., VII, 964); St. Cypr., test. c. Jud., II, 9 (P.L., IV, 704); St.
Epiph., haer., III, ii, 18 (P.G., XLII, 729).
[6] Lagarde, Guthe, Giesebrecht, Cheyne, Wilke.
[7] cf. Knabenbauer, Comment. in Isaiam, Paris, 1887; Schegg, Der Prophet
Isaias, Munchen, 1850; Rohling, Der Prophet Isaia, Munster, 1872; Neteler, Das
Bush Isaias, Munster, 1876; Condamin, Le livre d'Isaie, Paris, 1905; Maas,
Christ in Type and Prophecy, New York, 1893, I, 333 sqq.; Lagrange, La Vierge et
Emmaneul, in Revue biblique, Paris, 1892, pp. 481-497; Lémann, La Vierge et
l'Emmanuel, Paris, 1904; St. Ignat., ad Eph., cc. 7, 19, 19; St. Justin, Dial.,
P.G., VI, 144, 195; St. Iren., adv. haer., IV, xxxiii, 11.
[8] Cf. the principal Catholic commentaries on Micheas; also Maas, "Christ in
Type and Prophecy, New York, 1893, I, pp. 271 sqq.
[9] P.G., XXV, col. 205; XXVI, 12 76
[10] In Jer., P.L., XXIV, 880
[11] cf. Scholz, Kommentar zum Propheten Jeremias, Würzburg, 1880; Knabenbauer,
Das Buch Jeremias, des Propheten Klagelieder, und das Buch Baruch, Vienna, 1903;
Conamin, Le texte de Jeremie, xxxi, 22, est-il messianique? in Revue biblique,
1897, 393-404; Maas, Christ in Type and Prophecy, New York, 1893, I, 378 sqq..
[12] cf. St. Ambrose, de Spirit. Sanct., I, 8-9, P.L., XVI, 705; St. Jerome,
Epist., cviii, 10; P.L., XXII, 886.
[13] cf. Gietmann, In Eccles. et Cant. cant., Paris, 1890, 417 sq.
[14] cf. Bull "Ineffabilis", fourth Lesson of the Office for 10 Dec..
[15] Response of seventh Nocturn in the Office of the Immaculate Conception.
[16] cf. St. Justin, dial. c. Tryph., 100; P.G., VI, 709-711; St. Iren., adv.
haer., III, 22; V, 19; P.G., VII, 958, 1175; Tert., de carne Christi, 17; P.L.,
II, 782; St. Cyril., catech., XII, 15; P.G., XXXIII, 741; St. Jerome, ep. XXII
ad Eustoch., 21; P.L., XXII, 408; St. Augustine, de agone Christi, 22; P.L., XL,
303; Terrien, La Mère de Dien et la mère des hommes, Paris, 1902, I, 120-121;
II, 117-118; III, pp. 8-13; Newman, Anglican Difficulties, London, 1885, II, pp.
26 sqq.; Lecanu, Histoire de la Sainte Vierge, Paris, 1860, pp. 51-82.
[17] de B. Virg., l. IV, c. 24
[18] La Vierge Marie d'apres l'Evangile et dans l'Eglise
[19] Letter to Dr. Pusey
[20] Mary in the Gospels, London and New York, 1885, Lecture I.
[21] cf. Tertullian, de carne Christi, 22; P.L., II, 789; St. Aug., de cons.
Evang., II, 2, 4; P.L., XXXIV, 1072.
[22] Cf. St. Ignat., ad Ephes, 187; St. Justin, c. Taryph., 100; St. Aug., c.
Faust, xxiii, 5-9; Bardenhewer, Maria Verkundigung, Freiburg, 1896, 74-82;
Friedrich, Die Mariologie des hl. Augustinus, Cöln, 1907, 19 sqq.
[23] Jans., Hardin., etc.
[24] hom. I. de nativ. B.V., 2, P.G., XCVI, 664
[25] P.G., XLVII, 1137
[26] de praesent., 2, P.G., XCVIII, 313
[27] de laud. Deipar., P.G., XLIII, 488
[28] P.L., XCVI, 278
[29] in Nativit. Deipar., P.L., CLI, 324
[30] cf. Aug., Consens. Evang., l. II, c. 2
[31] Schuster and Holzammer, Handbuch zur biblischen Geschichte, Freiburg, 1910,
II, 87, note 6
[32] Anacreont., XX, 81-94, P.G., LXXXVII, 3822
[33] hom. I in Nativ. B.M.V., 6, II, P.G., CCXVI, 670, 678
[34] cf. Guérin, Jérusalem, Paris, 1889, pp. 284, 351-357, 430; Socin-Benzinger,
Palästina und Syrien, Leipzig, 1891, p. 80; Revue biblique, 1893, pp. 245 sqq.;
1904, pp. 228 sqq.; Gariador, Les Bénédictins, I, Abbaye de Ste-Anne, V, 1908,
49 sq.
[35] cf. de Vogue, Les églises de la Terre-Sainte, Paris, 1850, p. 310
[36] 2, 4, P.L., XXX, 298, 301
[37] Itiner., 5, P.L., LXXII, 901
[38] cf. Lievin de Hamme, Guide de la Terre-Sainte, Jerusalem, 1887, III, 183
[39] haer., XXX, iv, II, P.G., XLI, 410, 426
[40] P.G., XCVII, 806
[41] cf. Aug., de santa virginit., I, 4, P.L., XL, 398
[42] cf. Luke, i, 41; Tertullian, de carne Christi, 21, P.L., II, 788; St.
Ambr., de fide, IV, 9, 113, P.L., XVI, 639; St. Cyril of Jerus., Catech., III,
6, P.G., XXXIII, 436
[43] Tischendorf, Evangelia apocraphya, 2nd ed., Leipzig, 1876, pp. 14-17,
117-179
[44] P.G., XLVII, 1137
[45] P.G., XCVIII, 313
[46] P.G., XXXVCIII, 244
[47] cf. Guérin, Jerusalem, 362; Liévin, Guide de la Terre-Sainte, I, 447
[48] de virgin., II, ii, 9, 10, P.L., XVI, 209 sq.
[49] cf. Corn. Jans., Tetrateuch. in Evang., Louvain, 1699, p. 484; Knabenbauer,
Evang. sec. Luc., Paris, 1896, p. 138
[50] cf. St. Ambrose, Expos. Evang. sec. Luc., II, 19, P.L., XV, 1560
[51] cf. Schick, Der Geburtsort Johannes' des Täufers, Zeitschrift des Deutschen
Palästina-Vereins, 1809, 81; Barnabé Meistermann, La patrie de saint
Jean-Baptiste, Paris, 1904; Idem, Noveau Guide de Terre-Sainte, Paris, 1907, 294
sqq.
[52] cf. Plinius, Histor. natural., V, 14, 70
[53] cf. Aug., ep. XLCCCVII, ad Dardan., VII, 23 sq., P.L., XXXIII, 840; Ambr.
Expos. Evang. sec. Luc., II, 23, P.L., XV, 1561
[54] cf. Knabenbauer, Evang. sec. Luc., Paris, 1896, 104-114; Schürer,
Geschichte des Jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi, 4th edit., I, 508
sqq.; Pfaffrath, Theologie und Glaube, 1905, 119
[55] cf. St. Justin, dial. c. Tryph., 78, P.G., VI, 657; Orig., c. Cels., I, 51,
P.G., XI, 756; Euseb., vita Constant., III, 43; Demonstr. evang., VII, 2, P.G.,
XX, 1101; St. Jerome, ep. ad Marcell., XLVI [al. XVII]. 12; ad Eustoch., XVCIII
[al. XXVII], 10, P.L., XXII, 490, 884
[56] in Ps. XLVII, II, P.L., XIV, 1150;
[57] orat. I, de resurrect., P.G., XLVI, 604;
[58] de fide orth., IV, 14, P.G., XLIV, 1160; Fortun., VIII, 7, P.L., LXXXVIII,
282;
[59] 63, 64, 70, P.L., XXXVIII, 142;
[60] Summa theol., III, q. 35, a. 6;
[61] cf. Joseph., Bell. Jud., II, xviii, 8
[62] In Flaccum, 6, Mangey's edit., II, p. 523
[63] cf. Schurer, Geschichte des Judischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi,
Leipzig, 1898, III, 19-25, 99
[64] The legends and traditions concerning these points may be found in
Jullien's "L'Egypte" (Lille, 1891), pp. 241-251, and in the same author's work
entitled "L'arbre de la Vierge a Matarich", 4th edit. (Cairo, 1904).
[65] As to Mary's virginity in her childbirth we may consult St. Iren., haer.
IV, 33, P.G., VII, 1080; St. Ambr., ep. XLII, 5, P.L., XVI, 1125; St. Aug., ep
CXXXVII, 8, P.L., XXXIII, 519; serm. LI, 18, P.L., XXXVIII, 343; Enchir. 34,
P.L., XL, 249; St. Leo, serm., XXI, 2, P.L., LIV, 192; St. Fulgent., de fide ad
Petr., 17, P.L., XL, 758; Gennad., de eccl. dogm., 36, P.G., XLII, 1219; St.
Cyril of Alex., hom. XI, P.G., LXXVII, 1021; St. John Damasc., de fide orthod.,
IV, 14, P.G., XCIV, 1161; Pasch. Radb., de partu Virg., P.L., CXX, 1367; etc. As
to the passing doubts concerning Mary's virginity during her childbirth, see
Orig., in Luc., hom. XIV, P.G., XIII, 1834; Tertullian, adv. Marc., III, 11,
P.L., IV, 21; de carne Christi, 23, P.L., II, 336, 411, 412, 790.
[66] Matt., xii, 46-47; xiii, 55-56; Mark, iii, 31-32; iii, 3; Luke, viii,
19-20; John, ii, 12; vii, 3, 5, 10; Acts, i, 14; I Cor., ix, 5; Gal., i, 19;
Jude, 1
[67] cf. St. Jerome, in Matt., i, 2 (P.L., XXVI, 24-25)
[68] cf. St. John Chrys., in Matt., v, 3, P.G., LVII, 58; St. Jerome, de
perpetua virgin. B.M., 6, P.L., XXIII, 183-206; St. Ambrose, de institut.
virgin., 38, 43, P.L., XVI, 315, 317; St. Thomas, Summa theol., III, q. 28, a.
3; Petav., de incarn., XIC, iii, 11; etc.
[69] cf. Exod., xxxiv, 19; Num., xciii, 15; St. Epiphan., haer. lxxcviii, 17,
P.G., XLII, 728
[70] cf. Revue biblique, 1895, pp. 173-183
[71] St. Peter Chrysol., serm., CXLII, in Annunt. B.M. V., P.G., LII, 581;
Hesych., hom. V de S. M. Deip., P.G., XCIII, 1461; St. Ildeph., de virgin.
perpet. S.M., P.L., XCVI, 95; St. Bernard, de XII praer. B.V.M., 9, P.L.,
CLXXXIII, 434, etc.
[72] ad Ephes., 7, P.G., V, 652
[73] adv. haer., III, 19, P.G., VIII, 940, 941
[74] adv. Prax. 27, P.L., II, 190
[75] Serm. I, 6, 7, P.G., XLVIII, 760-761
[76] Cf. Ambr., in Luc. II, 25, P.L., XV, 1521; St. Cyril of Alex., Apol. pro
XII cap.; c. Julian., VIII; ep. ad Acac., 14; P.G., LXXVI, 320, 901; LXXVII, 97;
John of Antioch, ep. ad Nestor., 4, P.G., LXXVII, 1456; Theodoret, haer. fab.,
IV, 2, P.G., LXXXIII, 436; St. Gregory Nazianzen, ep. ad Cledon., I, P.G.,
XXXVII, 177; Proclus, hom. de Matre Dei, P.G., LXV, 680; etc. Among recent
writers must be noticed Terrien, La mère de Dieu et la mere des hommes, Paris,
1902, I, 3-14; Turnel, Histoire de la théologie positive, Paris, 1904, 210-211.
[77] cf. Petav., de incarnat., XIV, i, 3-7
[78] ep. CCLX, P.G., XXXII, 965-968
[79] hom. IV, in Matt., P.G., LVII, 45; hom. XLIV, in Matt. P.G., XLVII, 464
sq.; hom. XXI, in Jo., P.G., LIX, 130
[80] in Jo., P.G., LXXIV, 661-664
[81] St. Ambrose, in Luc. II, 16-22; P.L., XV, 1558-1560; de virgin. I, 15; ep.
LXIII, 110; de obit. Val., 39, P.L., XVI, 210, 1218, 1371; St. Augustin, de nat.
et grat., XXXVI, 42, P.L., XLIV, 267; St. Bede, in Luc. II, 35, P.L., XCII, 346;
St. Thomas, Summa theol., III. Q. XXVII, a. 4; Terrien, La mere de Dieu et la
mere des hommes, Paris, 1902, I, 3-14; II, 67-84; Turmel, Histoire de la
théologie positive, Paris, 1904, 72-77; Newman, Anglican Difficulties, II,
128-152, London, 1885
[82] cf. Iliad, III, 204; Xenoph., Cyrop., V, I, 6; Dio Cassius, Hist., LI, 12;
etc.
[83] cf. St. Irenaeus, c. haer., III, xvi, 7, P.G., VIIThe Early Church
As early as the 2nd century, Christians venerated Mary by calling
her Mother of God, a title that primarily stresses the divinity of
Jesus. During the controversies of the 4th century concerning the divine
and human natures of Jesus, the Greek title theotókos
(Mother of God) came to be used for Mary in devotional and theological
writing. Nestorius, patriarch of Constantinople (present-day Ýstanbul),
contested this usage, insisting that Mary was mother of Christ,
not of God. In 431, the Council of Ephesus condemned Nestorianism
and solemnly affirmed that Mary is to be called theotókos, a title
that has been used since that time in the Orthodox and Roman Catholic
churches.The Middle Ages
During the late Middle Ages (13th century to 15th century), devotion
to Mary grew dramatically. One of the principal reasons was the image
of Christ that developed in the missionary efforts of the early
Middle Ages. To the extent that the Goths and other tribes of central
and northern Europe were Christian, they remained strongly influenced
by Arianism, a teaching that denied the divinity of Christ. In
response, preaching and the arts of this period particularly stressed
Christ's divinity, as in the Byzantine depictions of Christ as
Pantokrator (universal and all-powerful ruler) and in the western
images of Christ as the supreme and universal judge. As Christ became
an awe-inspiring, judgmental figure, Mary came to be depicted as
the one who interceded for sinners. As the fear of death and the
Last Judgment intensified following the Black Plague in the 14th
century, Mary was increasingly venerated in popular piety as mediator
of the mercy of Christ. Her prayers and pleas were seen as theagency that tempered the stern justice of Christ. Among the popular
devotions that came into being at this time were the rosary
(a chaplet originally consisting of 150 Hail Marys in imitation of
the 150 Psalms in the psalter, later augmented by 15 interspersed
Our Fathers as penance for daily sins); the angelus recited
at sunrise, noon, and sunset; and litanies (invocations of
Mary using such biblical titles as Mystical Rose, Tower of David,
and Refuge of Sinners). Hymns, psalms, and prayers were incorporated
into the Little Office of the Blessed Virgin, in imitation of the
longer divine office recited or chanted by monks and priests.Doctrine of Immaculate Conception
The principal theological development concerning Mary in the Middle
Ages was the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. This doctrine,
defended and preached by the Franciscan friars under the inspiration
of the 13th-century Scottish theologian John Duns Scotus, maintains
that Mary was conceived without original sin. Dominican teachers
and preachers vigorously opposed the doctrine, maintaining that
it detracted from Christ's role as universal savior. Pope Sixtus
IV, a Franciscan, defended it, establishing in 1477 a feast of the
Immaculate Conception with a proper mass and office to be celebrated
on December 8. This feast was extended to the whole Western church
by Pope Clement XI in 1708. In 1854 Pope Pius IX issued a solemn
decree defining the Immaculate Conception for all Roman Catholics,
but the doctrine has not been accepted by Protestants or by the
Orthodox churches. In 1950 Pope Pius XII solemnly defined as an
article of faith for all Roman Catholics the doctrine of the
bodily assumption of Mary into heaven.Shrines
Marian shrines and places of pilgrimage are found throughout the
world. At Montserrat in Spain the Black Virgin has been venerated
since the 12th century. The icon of Our Lady of Czêstochowa has
been venerated in Poland since the early 14th century. The picture
of Our Lady of Guadalupe commemorates an alleged apparition
of Mary to Native American Juan Diego in Mexico in 1531. In the
19th century a number of apparitions of Mary were reported that
inspired the development of shrines, devotions, and pilgrimages - for
instance, in Paris (1830, Our Lady of the Miraculous Medal);
Lourdes (1858, Our Lady of Lourdes); Knock, in Ireland
(1879, Our Lady of Knock); and Fatima, in Portugal
(1917, Our Lady of Fatima).
Mary, the Blessed Virgin
Advanced Information
(Elwell Evangelical Dictionary)
R. E. Brown et al., eds., Mary in the NT; R. E. Brown,
"The Meaning of Modern NT Studies for an Ecumenical Understanding of
Mary," in Biblical Reflection on Crises Facing the Church; W. J. Cole,
"Scripture and the Current Understanding of Mary among American
Protestants," Maria in Sacra Scriptura, VI; A. Greeley, The Mary Myth;
J. G. Machen, The Virgin Birth of Christ; J. McHugh, The Mother of
Jesus in the NT; H. A. Oberman, The Virgin Mary in Evangelical
Perspective; R. Ruether, Mary: The Feminine Face of the Church.
Ma'ry
Advanced Information
The Blessed Virgin Mary
Catholic Information