СТАТТІ З ANCHOR BIBLE DICTIONARY

MARY, MOTHER OF JESUS. Mentioned by name only in the Synoptic

Gospels and Acts, the mother of Jesus is a character of some importance in the
gospel of John as well (though her name is never given). She appears by
implication elsewhere in the NT also, and becomes a figure of increasing
attention in the noncanonical literature of early Christianity. The witness of the
Christian Scriptures is the foundation of subsequent development of
Mariological tradition in theology, doctrine, and devotion.
Genuine Pauline letters provide the earliest witness to the mother of Jesus.
Although her name does not appear in any Pauline epistle, there are references
to Jesus’ birth in which his mother is implied. Among these are pre-Pauline
formulas: “though he was in the form of God … he emptied himself … coming
in human likeness; and found human in appearance” (Phil 2:6–7 NAB), in a
context that stresses preexistence; “who was born of the seed of David according
to the flesh” (Rom 1:3), part of the praescriptio (1:1–7) whose intent is to
contrast Jesus’ fleshly (i.e., Davidic) status with his spiritual (i.e., resurrected)
status. The statement by Paul in Galatians that Jesus was “born of a woman”
(4:4) may not carry any reference to his actual mother, because the expression is
a commonplace designation of any human being (Job 14:1; 15:14; 25:4; cf. 1
Esdr 4:15; 1QH 13:14). The analogy between Jesus and Isaac, “born according
to the Spirit” (4:29), does not necessarily indicate that Paul knew a doctrine of
the virginal conception of Jesus, though the matter is problematic (see Brown et
al. 1978: 45–49). There is no pervasive Isaac-Jesus typology in Paul. Pauline
focus on the Jesus resurrection limits interest in his earthly life.
The two-source hypothesis of the Synoptic Gospels and the theological
intentionality of the Matthean and Lukan infancy narratives together indicate
Mark as the earliest witness to Marian tradition. Mark 3:31–35 (= Matt 12:46–
50; Luke 8:19–21) describes Jesus’ relationship to Mary and his family in a
context of questions and controversy: Jesus’ family sets out to seize him,
apparently thinking him to be “beside himself” (3:20–21); Jesus, meanwhile, has
spent his time with his chosen ones (3:13–19) and the crowd (v 20). Scribes
from Jerusalem claim Jesus is possessed and casts out demons by Beelzebul’s
power, but Jesus replies in parables (3:22–27). When the “mother and brothers”
of Jesus arrive, they stand outside and request to see him; but Jesus identifies
those sitting around him as “my mother and brothers,” the ones who do God’s
will (Mark 3:31–35). Thus the Markan context sets up a sharp distinction
between “outsiders,” i.e., Jesus’ natural family and the scribes, and “insiders,”
i.e., his followers. Jesus declares his preference for an eschatological family
(3:33–35). Membership in Jesus’ family is not to be based on the relationships of
kinship that are valued in society. The Matthean and Lukan parallels omit
negative portrayals of Jesus’ relatives, though they retain the saying that
identifies his family as the ones who hear God’s word and act on it (Matt 12:48–
50; Luke 8:19–21). Matthew and Luke do not exclude Jesus’ mother and
brothers from the eschatological family, which later includes Mary and Jesus’
brothers (Acts 1:14).
After Jesus’ arrival in “his native place,” i.e., Nazareth (NAB), family members
are mentioned in a discussion about his teaching (Mark 6:1–6a = Matt 13:53–58;
Luke 4:16–30). The epithet “Son of Mary” (Mark 6:3 = Matt 13:55; Luke 4:22)
implies neither a doctrine of virginal conception nor Jesus’ illegitimacy; the
terms “brothers” and “sisters” in the same passage denote blood relations and
extended family members (Brown et al. 1978: 65–72). Jesus’ saying about a
prophet’s honor except among relatives (Mark 6:4; Matt 13:57; Luke 4:24)
designates his family as “outsiders” unable to believe. Witnesses of the
crucifixion are not identified with Jesus’ family (Mark 15:40 = Matt 27:56; cf.
Luke 23:49).
Christology is the primary focus of the Matthean and Lukan infancy narratives,
which constitute the latest stage of gospel tradition (Brown 1977: 25–38). The
narratives (Matthew 1–2; Luke 1–2) retroject the proclamation of Jesus’ divinity
at the resurrection and during the public ministry to his conception. Their
historical value is open to question, including the portraits of Mary they give.
Matthew identifies Jesus as “Christ, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham”
(1:1) in an unusual genealogy (1:1–17) which includes names of four women,
Tamar (v 3), Rahab, Ruth (v 5), and Uriah’s wife (Bathsheba, v 6), whose
irregular conjugal unions nonetheless participate in God’s plan. The story of
Jesus’ birth (vv 18–25) strengthens Mary’s association with the women and
Joseph’s role (Brown 1977: 71–74). The extraordinary conception of Jesus is
disclosed. Mary, “betrothed to Joseph,” i.e., formally vowed to him but not
sharing his home, is “with child of the Holy Spirit” (v 18). Joseph’s predicament
about the pregnancy and his resolution “to divorce her quietly” (v 19) is
reversed through an angelic dream which also confirms the initial disclosure:
Mary’s conception is “of the Holy Spirit,” i.e., the creative agency of God (v
20). A fulfillment formula (vv 22–23) associates Isa 7:14 with Mary’s
conception and birth of Jesus. The literary device is not recognized by some who
read Isa 7:14 as a foreshadowing of Jesus’ virginal conception and birth (Brown
1977: 143–53). Joseph, “son of David,” obeys the dream directive in assuming
legal paternity by taking Mary into his home and naming Jesus (vv 21, 25).
Emphasis on Mary’s virginity before Jesus’ birth (v 25) neither affirms nor
denies a sexual relationship with Joseph afterward. Joseph, directed by dreams
(2:13, 19) provides lodging (2:11) and protection for the child and Mary (2:13–
21), who functions stereotypically (2:11, 13–14, 21–22).
In the Lukan infancy narrative (Luke 1–2) Mary is featured in two pairs of
scenes concerning the annunciation of Jesus’ birth (Luke 1:26–38) and the birth
itself (2:1–21). Surrounding these are stories that indicate the superiority of
Jesus to John the Baptist (Luke 1:5–25, 39–56, 57–66, 67–80). The story of the
annunication of John the Baptist’s birth (Luke 1:5–25) to an elderly couple,
Zechariah and his barren wife Elizabeth (1:7), stands in contrast to the
annunciation of Jesus’ birth to the virgin Mary (1:26–38), betrothed to Joseph
(1:27; cf. Matt 1:18). A pattern of birth announcements familiar from the OT
structures the scenes. An angel appears to Zechariah and Mary (vv 11, 28); they
respond fearfully (vv 12, 29). Reassuring them, the messenger reveals God’s
agency in births from a barren, elderly womb and a betrothed virgin, and reveals
the name of each child and his destined role in salvation (vv 13–17, 30–33). In
both cases, the recipients of the message question the angel’s revelation (vv 18,
34). The messenger responds and offers a sign (vv 19–22, 35–38). Some critics
consider Mary’s question in vv 34–35 an addition interrupting the sequence of
the narrative. The question is best understood as a literary device to inform the
reader, not an examination of Mary’s personal psychology (Brown 1977: 303–
9). The reply (v 35) describing God’s creativity (“Holy Spirit … overshadow”)
is figurative language, excluding a sexual implication. It does not address
Mary’s biological virginity. Analysis of pre-Lukan and pre-Matthean tradition
about the historicity of the virginal conception of Jesus is inconclusive (Fitzmyer
Luke I–IX AB, 337–42). Mary’s role as the “favored one” (Luke 1:28), i.e.,
mother of Jesus (Miriam of Nazareth), is the basis for her symbolic function as
the disciple who hears and responds to God’s word (v 38; cf. 8:19–21, 11:27–28;
Acts 1:4).
The visitation episode (1:39–56) brings Mary to assist Elizabeth (1:36) in
Zechariah’s home. Elizabeth praises “the mother of my Lord” (vv 42–45) to
which Mary’s attributed Magnificat (vv 46–55) extols God who reverses the
situations of the powerful and weak (Fitzmyer Luke I–IX AB, 357–71).
The diptych of the births (1:57–80; 2:1–20) presents additional parallels: birth,
circumcision, naming, canticle. Joseph’s lineage and relationship to Mary (1:27)
is delineated in the enrollment in Bethlehem, Jesus’ birth, shepherds’ visitation,
and Temple scenes (2:1–7, 16–38, 41–52). Mary’s response to the shepherds’
message (vv 17–19), Simeon’s prophecy (v 34), and Jesus’ words in the Temple
(v 49) indicate her role as the believing disciple (vv 19, 50–51; cf. 1:38, 45)
when the scenes are interpreted for their literary and theological intent rather
than for their value as eyewitness testimony (Brown et al. 1978: 147–62).
The Fourth Gospel introduces the mother of Jesus at the wedding at Cana (2:1–
11) and at the cross (19:25–27; cf. Mark 15:40–41 [= Matt 27:55–56]; Luke
23:49). The scenes are similar. There are no proper names: “mother of Jesus”
(2:1, 2, 5, 19:25–26), “woman” (2:4, 19:26), “disciples” (2:2, 11), “Beloved
Disciple” (19:26–27). Speech takes place in dialogue (2:3–5) or monologue
(19:26–27). The scenes are linked to each other: Mary’s misunderstanding (2:3)
is a foil for her final role (19:26–27) just as the disciples’ initial dependence on a
sign (2:3, 12) is superfluous later (19:25–27). Historically improbable, the
scenes symbolize the faith of Jesus’ mother, who is dependent on familial ties
(2:3–5). At Cana she and Jesus’ “brothers” are distinguished from the disciples
(2:12; see 7:3, 5, 10; cf. Mark 3:31–35 [= Matt 12:46–50]; Luke 8:19–21); at the
cross, however, she is a model disciple (with the BELOVED DISCIPLE) who
belongs to Jesus’ true family. The portrait parallels the Lukan image.
Revelation 12 depicts two scenes which some associate with Mary. In “heaven”
a “woman” who gives birth to a “male child” encounters opposition from a
“dragon” (vv 1–6). On “earth” a “woman” with her “male child” escapes a
“dragon/serpent” (vv 13–17). The author uses OT imagery as well as
mythological sources to create the characters. The scenes depict God’s
protection of the “woman” and her “offspring.” The “woman” symbolizes the
OT people of God as well as the NT people of God, i.e., the Church. Some argue
that Mary is the “woman” giving birth to the Messiah. Others point out that
early Church writers like the author of Revelation did not identify the “woman”
as Mary (cf. 12:9). The birth of the “male child” is different than Jesus’ birth in
Matthew 2 and Luke 2 (Brown et al. 1978: 223–39).
A few Apocryphal gospels expand the infancy narratives (Matthew 1–2; Luke 1–
2). The Protevangelium of James presents Mary’s parentage (Joachim and
Anna), birth, childhood, virginity, marriage to Joseph, and the birth of Jesus.
Mary’s Davidic lineage supersedes the legal paternity of Joseph (Matthew 1–2).
Allegations about Jesus’ illegitimacy are refuted by Mary’s miraculous birth and
virgin birth. Joseph is a widower with children (who are the “brothers of Jesus”
mentioned in the canonical gospels); by this means her perpetual virginity is
protected (NTApocr 1: 366–67). Joseph’s identification also occurs in the Gospel
of Peter (NTApocr 1: 179). The Infancy Gospel of Thomas describes Jesus’
boyhood activities of performing miracles and learning with Joseph as mentor.
His mother plays a major role only in an expanded version of Luke 2:41–52,
where the parents search for their child (NTApocr 1.391–92, 398–99). In
contrast, the Gospel of the Nazaraeans situates her during Jesus’ ministry; she
requests to be cleansed from sin by John’s baptism (NTApocr 1: 146–47).
Mariological studies developed historically within the context of Christian
theology, doctrine (Borresen 1983; Maron 1983; Nissiotis 1983; Pelikan 1986;
Tambasco 1984: 3–12, 38–53), and devotion (Tambasco 1984: 65–72). With
biblical colleagues (Flanagan 1987; Reese 1977; Schineller 1987; van den
Hengel 1985), contemporary scholars consider new paradigms for Mary
(Bearsley 1980); interpretations of Mary vis-à-vis God (Boff 1987; Healy 1985;
Johnson 1989), Christ (Johnson 1984), Church (Carr 1985), Christian feminism
(Gordon 1982; Halkes 1983; Johnson 1985; Moltmann-Wendel 1983), and
ecumenical dialogue (Ben-Chorin 1983; Brown 1975; Flusser 1988; Moltmann
1983).
Bibliography
Bearsley, P. J. 1980. Mary the Perfect Disciple: A Paradigm for Mariology. TS
41: 461–504.
Ben-Chorin, S. 1983. A Jewish View of the Mother of Jesus. Pp. 12–16 in Küng
and Moltmann 1983.
Boff, L. 1987. The Maternal Face of God: The Feminine and Its Religious
Expressions. Trans. R. Barr and J. Diercksmeier. New York.
Borresen, K. 1983. Mary in Catholic Theology. Pp. 48–58 in Küng and
Moltmann 1983.
Brown, R. E. 1975. The Meaning of Modern New Testament Studies for an
Ecumenical Understanding of Mary. Pp. 84–108 in Crises Facing the Church.
New York.
———. 1977. The Birth of the Messiah. Garden City, NY.
———. 1981. Mary in Scripture. Pp. 23–37 in Menlo Papers: Mary. Hartford,
CT.
Brown, R. E.; Donfried, K. P.; Fitzmyer, J. A.; and Reumann, J., eds. 1978.
Mary in the New Testament. Philadelphia.
Carr, A. 1985. Mary in the Mystery of the Church: Vatican Council II. Pp. 5–32
in Mary according to Women, ed. C. Jegen. Kansas City.
Flanagan, N. M. 1987. Mary of Nazareth: Lady for All Seasons. Listening 22:
170–80.
Flusser, D. 1988. Mary and Israel. Pp. 7–16 in Mary: Images of the Mother of
Jesus in Jewish and Christian Perspective. Philadelphia.
Gordon, M. 1982. Coming to Terms with Mary: Meditations on Innocence, Grief
and Glory. Commonweal 109: 11–14.
Halkes, C. 1983. Mary and Women. Pp. 66–73 in Küng and Moltmann 1983.
Healy, M. 1985. Mary, Sea of Wisdom: Reflection on the Femininity of God. Pp.
33–50 in Mary according to Women, ed. C. Jegen. Kansas City.
Hengel, J. van den. 1985. Mary: Miriam of Nazareth or the Symbol of the
“Eternal Feminine.” ScEs 37: 319–33.
Johnson, E. A. 1984. Mary and Contemporary Christology: Rahner and
Schillebeeckx. ÉgT 15: 155–82.
———. 1985. The Marian Tradition and the Reality of Women. Horizons 12:
116–35.
———. 1989. Mary and the Female Face of God. TS 50: 500–26.
Küng, H., and Moltmann, J., eds. 1983. Mary in the Churches. Concilium 168/8.
New York.
Lonsdale, D. 1984. Theological Trends: Mary and the New Testament. Way 24:
133–45.
Maron, G. 1983. Mary in Protestant Theology. Pp. 40–47 in Küng and
Moltmann 1983.
Moltmann, J. 1983. Editorial: Can There Be an Ecumenical Mariology? Pp. xii–
xv in Küng and Moltmann 1983.
Moltmann-Wendel, E. 1983. Motherhood or Friendship. Pp. 17–24 in Küng and
Moltmann 1983.
Nissiotis, N. 1983. Mary in Orthodox Theology. Pp. 25–39 in Küng and
Moltmann 1983.
Pelikan, J. 1986. Mary: Exemplar of the Development of Christian Doctrine. Pp.
79–91. In Mary: Images of the Mother of Jesus in Jewish and Christian
Perspective. Philadelphia.
Reese, J. M. 1977. The Historical Images of Mary in the New Testament. MarSt
28: 27–44.
Schineller, P. 1987. Mary: Model of Faith and Perfect Disciple. Emmanuel 93:
426–37.
Tambasco, A. J. 1984. What Are They Saying About Mary? New York.
Mary Margaret Pazdan1

TAMAR (PERSON) [Heb tāmār (‫])ָּת ָמ ר‬. The name of three women in the OT.
The name may mean “palm (tree)” (IPN 230).

1 Mary Margaret Pazdan, “Mary, Mother of Jesus,” in The Anchor Yale Bible
Dictionary, ed. David Noel Freedman (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 584–586.
1. In Genesis 38, the Canaanite woman who was married to Er, Judah’s first son
by the Canaanite daughter of Shua. After Er was slain for his wickedness by
God, Judah asked his next son Onan to perform the task of levirite marriage with
Tamar. Onan, however, attempted to avoid issue with her by practicing coitus
interruptus, and for this he too was killed by God. When Judah tried to save his
last son Shelah by delaying giving Tamar to him, she took matters into her own
hands. Disguising herself as a prostitute, she had relations with Judah. When he
discovered her pregnancy and his own role in it, Judah declared her to be more
righteous than he since he had withheld Shelah from her. She bore twin sons,
Perez and Zerah and through Perez was an ancestress of David (Ruth 4:12, 18–
22; 1 Chr 2–4) and Jesus (Matt 1:3).
The story has been the focus of much recent research dealing with such
questions as its origins (Emerton 1979), its function within the Joseph story,
especially through a literary analytical approach (Alter 1975), and the reasons
for Tamar’s actions (Coats 1972; Niditch 1979).2

2 Gary H. Oller, “Tamar (Person),” in The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary, ed. David
Noel Freedman (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 315.