Historical sources on Mary: Bible and apocrypha

The Problem of Sources Regarding Mary of Nazareth

The issue of sources concerning Mary of Nazareth predates that of sources about Jesus himself: the canonical Gospels provide limited and theologically intended information. Apocryphal texts, such as the *Protoevangelium of James*, fill in the silence with elaborate narratives from the 2nd century. This article critically examines each of these sources—biblical, apocryphal, and extra-biblical—distinguishing between what belongs to history and what belongs to theology, for a methodologically solid understanding of the historical figure of Mary of Nazareth.

Historical and Theological Investigation

The study of the historical Jesus can and should be accompanied by a parallel investigation of the key figures in his life, for no one lives in historical isolation. Specifically, special attention is due to Mary, the Mother of Jesus, who has recently been designated as the most important and successful woman in human history. Her presence remains potent today, evident in the arts, literature, high and popular culture, and even in supernatural phenomena, making her remarkably relevant.

Historical Method for Mary

For Mary, as for her Son, the concrete circumstances of her existence can be traced using the same historical method, starting from the assumption that Mary’s figure is, after Jesus, the most important for the foundation of Christianity. Indeed, the founding myths of Christianity, or the narratives that underpin its existence, often have the Son and Mother (the Incarnation, Birth and Childhood, beginnings of public life, Passion, Death, Pentecost) as protagonists, or presuppose a role for her (Resurrection, Ascension), while others, though extra-biblical, concern themselves exclusively with the Mother’s life (such as the Assumption).

Jesus and Mary in Christianity

Jesus and Mary are intimately connected in the birth of Christianity, as artisans of its fundamental paradigms, that is, those facts that reveal the key truths of the Faith and guide the behavior of its followers. It is incorrectly stated that Paul was the most significant after Jesus for the birth of Christianity: in a historical religion, primacy belongs neither to those who spread the message nor to those who develop it, but to those who reveal it, embodying it in their existence. This is accomplished by Jesus and Mary.On the other hand, the life of the Son and the Mother, when viewed through the lens of dogmas, risks fading into Docetism, and implicitly, stripping the very foundations of these dogmas. Research is necessary, and given the current state of knowledge about the historical Jesus, it is both easier and richer in elements, free from the de-mythification mists of last century.One can say that for both the Mother and the Son, the same paths of inquiry were followed, albeit with less intensity for the Mother: from mythical figure to legendary in academic culture. Mary is the first-century Jew about whom we know the most. First, we distinguish between the Blessed Virgin of faith and Mary the historical figure, then we approach the latter with caution, and finally, we tackle her historical problems with great freedom, thanks to the vast array of available sources.Biblical Sources: The Silence of Mark, Luke’s Narratives (Lk 1-2), and Mary’s Presence in Johannine WritingsRegarding Mary, the mother of Jesus, we have a rich array of sources: biblical, apocryphal, panegyric, titular, profane, and post-biblical. Starting with biblical sources, we assume as established the information concerning both the dating of the Gospels and their composition, which I have defended and argued in previous works, as well as their harmonization and analysis in support of their historicity, including the accounts of Christ’s partenogenesis. Thus, we will avoid burdening this analysis with already known data.We identify three main biblical sources, grouped into two typologies, to which we relate some apocryphal and post-biblical, that is, patristic, texts of a similar nature. The first is the pestilential midrash of the Gospels of Infancy. It was originally a very ancient but nonetheless very different Jewish composition. The original text of the Infancy of Jesus, written based on the testimony of Mary herself and people very close to her, prior to the canonical Gospels and included in the primitive Gospel used for preaching, unlike Jewish midrashim, does not create ornate accounts around biblical passages, but seeks biblical passages that support the accounts. This reverse process, through successive re-elaborations, developed a free and vibrant theological and existential inquiry, preserved a historical core with relative geographical and cultural setting, captured secondary allusions to Jewish cultural themes implicit in the facts and their meaning, explicated philological and prophetic references, and taught through edifying thematization of the divine word, becoming also a Talmudic midrash.In this typology, we have, above all, the Gospel of Matthew, chronologically the first, which, however, makes a strict selection of the facts available in oral or written memory. The historical news it conveys are Jesus’ Davidic descent, and thus Mary’s insertion into the clan of the ancient king, as well as her parténogesis. Complementing this, it informs us that the Holy Family had a home and domicile in Bethlehem and had to leave it due to Herod’s persecutions, fleeing to the flourishing Jewish communities of Egypt. From there, they moved to Nazareth to escape the potential threat of Archelaus.Following Matthew, the author of the Ascension of Isaiah, in the first half of the 2nd century, composed a midrash that sought to demonstrate Mary’s perpetual virginity, conveying other historical data, such as the acceptance by the inhabitants of Bethlehem of Jesus’ mysterious origin. Post-biblical texts of Matean derivation came from the pens of important Fathers over several centuries. Ignatius of Antioch attests to the reserve that surrounded, for understandable reasons he reads in a supernatural captivity, the events of Jesus’ conception by Mary, which he associates with the House of David.Justino also testifies that Mary, evidently on her mother’s side, being a cousin of a priest and thus of the tribe of Levi, was of Davidic lineage, thus justifying the endogamous marriage with the Davidic Joseph. Tertullian states that she was born in Bethlehem, passing on this information to John Chrysostom and Clement of Alexandria.The second biblical source is the Gospel of Luke, which, though later, uses the original source on the Infancy of Jesus with greater richness of detail. The material used has a different hue from that chosen by Matthew. It is only intelligible in the context of the “Poor of God” and, certainly, was carefully preserved among Mary’s relatives, especially in Nazareth. In the background, one reads a desire to mark the difference with Davidic messianism. Luke, however, overcomes these biases stemming from the mentality of the various testimonies and conveys the information with scrupulous historicity and theological precision.Mary, married to Joseph and living with him in Nazareth before beginning conjugal life, conceives by the Holy Spirit, fulfilling the prophecy of Davidic messianism in a way different from what the readers of 2 Samuel 7:12 might have understood. Therefore, the recognition of her motherhood does not come from the relatives of her husband, but from hers, that is, Elizabeth and Zacharias. Transferred to Bethlehem at the time of Quirinus’ census, Mary initially has a provisional residence in the house of the Davidics, where she gives birth under difficult conditions. The Child is recognized by the shepherds, by Simeon and Anna. After fulfilling the Law, whose meaning I discussed on another occasion, the Holy Family returns to Nazareth. When Jesus is twelve years old, his parents take him to Jerusalem, where he protagonizes a symbolic episode, remaining in the Temple and showing his personality and the mystery that surrounds him at an early age.This Lukean tradition was followed by many post-biblical authors, who made Mary not only live, but be born in Nazareth.The Gospel of John: the theological framework of the Marian scenes, the Johannine Prologue, and Jo 19:25-27Another type of biblical source is the catechetical, which can be associated with the narrative of the Gospel of John concerning Mary. Information about her is always inserted within an important and clear theological framework. It is in the theological prologue that the conception of Jesus by the Holy Spirit in Mary, who is not mentioned, is attested. When she is presented in Cana, she is portrayed as a mediator for all the faithful, within the context of a narrative that makes her the prototype of a person of faith. This model is perfectly expressed by Mary at the foot of the Cross.Apocryphal complements: Gospel of Nicodemus (1st century) and Gamaliel (6th century) on Mary at the CrossFollowing this source, there are other apocrypha: the Gospel of Nicodemus, from the end of the 1st century, retakes the narrative of the Mother at the Cross. The Gospel of Gamaliel, much later (6th century), clarifies the redemptive sense of her presence. The Gospel of Peter, between 130 and 150, dramatizes the story, showing the emotional states of all the characters of the Passion around the Cross to reveal their true feelings.Justinus, Melitus of Sardis, Irenaeus of Lyon, and Tertullian: the soteriological meaning of Mary’s presence on the CrossOther patristic sources confirm the soteriological meaning of this presence and, indirectly, its historicity: Justinus, Melitus of Sardis, Irenaeus of Lyon, and Tertullian. A change in the meaning of the Marian episode on the Cross occurred only with Origen, who, breaking with the oldest tradition, claimed that the Mother was assailed by doubt about the Resurrection of bodies. The Alexandrian was followed and imitated in various ways by Ephraim the Syrian, Basil the Great, Theodore of Antioch, Anphilochius of Antioch, Paulinus of Nola, Cyril of Alexandria, Hesychius, the Pseudo-Nissene, the Pseudo-Chrysostom, and Philoxenus of Mabbug.The oldest tradition: Mary at the Cross and the pre-Ephesian Council (431) Christian memoryHowever, this illustrious theory of the Fathers does not change the fact that the oldest tradition attests that Mary remained at the foot of the Cross, in accordance with the will of the Lord. Before its definitive condemnation with the condemnation of Origen’s memory at the Second Council of Constantinople, this tradition was kept alive in Christian memory by the Sibylline Oracles III, 316, Gregory of Nazianzus in the poem *Christus Patiens*, Roman the Melode in Hymn XXXV titled “*The Lament of the Mother of God*”, the *Staurotteotoka* of Byzantine liturgical texts from the 6th century, and, much later, by Simeon the Logothete in the Prayer on Mary’s Lament in the 10th century.Apocryphal sources: the *Protoevangelium of James* (2nd century), Pseudo-Matthew, and their literary and theological statusApocryphal sources are very important for reconstructing parts of the life of Mary of Nazareth that are not found in the Gospels. Contrary to popular belief, they are reliable, of course, subject to healthy historical criticism where necessary.II): The Levitical Tradition of Mary’s Family and Jewish Priests ConvertedThe first source worth citing is the Protoevangelium of James, from the 2nd century, which compiles that Levitical tradition tracing back to Mary of Nazareth’s family and which was presumably shared by priests who converted to Christianity and were previously close to the Essene School. This tradition testifies that Jesus’ relatives were among the priests, though they were Davidic, meaning they did not belong to the Tribe of Levi. This is likely due to the fact that Joseph, as we will see, belonged to a order of consecrated individuals. Mary herself is called the “Daughter of David,” despite her undeniable Levitical kinship.Mary was born in Jerusalem, near the Pool of Siloam, to Joachim, described as a righteous and wealthy figure of the Old Testament type, and Anne. She entered the order of Temple virgins, was educated by the clergy, and as a teenager, was betrothed to Joseph, older than she, according to Jewish custom to protect virgins and in view of a prestigious, though yet unclear, future that seemed to point towards a virgin conception, in line with common beliefs in those environments. It is not the case to take literally the news of Joseph’s old age. Otherwise, it would not make sense that they moved to Nazareth, living off Joseph’s work, where the Annunciation occurred, which was reported not only by Joseph but also by priests with whom the couple maintained distant relations. From there, they returned to Bethlehem, Joseph’s hometown, for the census. On the fifth mile of the road between Bethlehem and Jerusalem, at the border between Benjamin and Judah, near Rachel’s Tomb, in a desolate place in the region of Ephrath, Mary gave birth to Jesus in a dark underground cave. The account, clearly precise in historical reconstruction, is tinged with docetism by claiming a mythological fact: the Son is born through condensation of light and the environment became a “most luminous cave.” The Protoevangelium also affirms, as Matthew and Luke do, that the Mother remained Virgin during and after the Birth, presenting as evidence the testimony of a midwife and Mary’s friend, Salome.In the Protoevangelium, some prophecies are attributed to Mary about the two peoples, the righteous and the wicked, following two opposite paths, drawing her close to the Old Testament prophetic movement and reminding her of her recitation of the Magnificat and the Benedictus by Zechariah. The tradition of the Protoevangelium was collected, without particular amplifications, but with a complete refurbishment, by the Latin Church with the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew in the 7th-8th centuries and with the Book of the Nativity of Mary in 846-849.The Gospel of Philip (2nd century) […]III. Gnosticism and the Secret Knowledge (Pistis Soptia): Opposition to the Canonical Gospels on Christ’s FiliationThe Gospel of Philip, a gnostic text from the 3rd century or earlier, significantly opposed what was taught in the Canonical Gospels and the Protoevangelium. This text would not have emphasized Joseph’s natural fatherhood if the pneumatic conception of Jesus had not been older. Around 240, the Pistis Soptia also attempted to incorporate the pneumatic conception of Christ into gnostic mythology but did not dare deny it.Panegyric of the Jewish-Christian Church on Saint Joseph: An Apocryphal Text (4th-5th Centuries) and Parallel to the Assumptionist TraditionThe Panegyric of the Jewish-Christian Church on Saint Joseph, attributed to Jesus himself but composed by a 2nd-century Jewish-Christian, served a commemorative function for the Patriarch. It was read at the tomb of the Nazareth family of Christ on August 2, March 5, and December 22. It confirms the narrative in the Protoevangelium of James about the marriage of Mary and Joseph and the birth of Jesus, specifying that it took place in Joseph’s house, presumably that of his relatives, as the Baby was lodged in animal quarters and not even in those of the guests, possibly due to other relatives occupying them.Panegyric on the Dormition and Assumption of Mary: A Text Attributed to Mileto of Sardis and Apocryphal Literary Strata (4th Century)Another crucial source is the Panegyric of the Jewish-Christian Church to be read on the anniversary of Mary’s Dormition and Assumption, a text from the 2nd century but likely much older. Overlooked by the mainstream Church until the 5th century, it is known as Dormitio Mariae and has come down to us in three complementary forms from different periods: the oldest, ebionite but Catholic, from the 2nd-3rd centuries, among the Relatives of Mary. The 4th-5th centuries saw the emergence of the Joannite form, with a Monophysite tendency, and a Jerusalemite-Calcedonian form from the 5th-7th centuries.Apocryphal sources are essential for reconstructing Mary of Nazareth’s life, which is not detailed in the Gospels. Contrary to popular belief, they are reliable if subjected to adequate historical criticism.The Oldest Form of the Dormitio Mariae: An Apocryphal Tradition from the 4th-5th Centuries and Testimony from Epiphanius of Salamis (d. 403)The oldest form of the Dormitio Mariae consists of three complete documents and several very close fragments, reflecting ebionite and Jewish-Christian doctrinal elements. It is attributed to the unknown Leucius from the 2nd century, who sought to polemicize against the teretic Ebionites who denied Christ’s divinity and viewed Mary as a Power of God. However, the author was accused of heresy by Greek Fathers, who had forgotten the distinct doctrinal characteristics of the Jewish-Christian Church.The text is rich in important and certainly authentic information.Mary spent the final part of her life in Magdala, near Jerusalem, and it was there that she received from Jesus the announcement of her imminent Dormition, along with the Book of Mysteries and a paradisiacal palm. The Virgin prepared for death with ablutions and prayers. Throughout the narrative, the characteristics of the Jewish-Christian belief attributed to Mary also appear: the fear of the wiles of angelic powers, faith in the doctrine of the two ways, the cosmic scale, and the escatological kingdom of good and evil.The agony and funeral of Mary in the apocryphal accounts: narrative structure and parallels with the death of Moses (Deut 34)In the Virgin’s agony, John from Sardis, Peter from Rome, and the other apostles were present. Among the Twelve, John is accused of negligence in guarding Mother of Jesus, Paul is viewed with suspicion, Peter speaks for all, and the others pray. There are also some virgins while the Jews, evidently the Pharisees, try to prevent the funeral of Mother of Jesus. Mary’s soul is entrusted by Jesus to Saint Michael, while her body is buried by Peter near the Cedron River. After three days, her body is assumed into Paradise by the psychopomps, angels who guide souls.The second form of the *Dormitio Mariae*: an apocryphal variant and its relation to the tradition of the Johannine school (5th century)The second form of the *Dormitio* has a nominal Monophysite tendency and polemicizes against both the Ebionites and the Fantasiasts or Aftartodocetists, considered enemies of the Apostle John. This form includes three Greek and Latin documents from the 4th to 5th centuries and some sermons from the 6th to 7th centuries. Besides defending the dogma of the Divine Maternity defined at Ephesus and supported by Cyril of Alexandria, this series of texts does not have other doctrinal peculiarities. Historically, it adds some credible details, according to which Mary’s funeral ceremony takes place east of Jerusalem, on top of the Mount of Olives, where there was a house of the relatives of the Evangelist, located in Gethsemane, where Mother of Jesus resided when she was a guest.The third form of the *dormitio mariae*: an elaborate variant and the context of Palestinian Marian piety (5th century)The third form of the *Dormitio* is completely free from Ebionism and Monophysitism. Purely Chalcedonian, it is linked to the shrines of Golgotha, Bethlehem, and Holy Zion, where various events are set. This form relies on different Syriac texts dating back to the teaching of the Apostle James the Lesser, and is essentially composed of four texts.The most significant information complementing the previous sources is that Thomas, arriving after the funeral, sought to open Mary’s tomb to venerate her one last time, only to find that her body had been assumed into Heaven.The celestial moment of the Assumption cannot be understood as historical in the proper sense, but occurs in a metaphysical dimension. The historical problem arises only with the narrative archetype used to describe its mode, namely, the role of the Archangel Michael and his resurrection in the Terrestrial Paradise. It is a different model from that of Jesus’ Resurrection, but, like that one, it has no identifiable prior literary archetype.The Gospels of Bartholomew and Gamaliel (6th century): the appearance of the Resurrected to the Mother and Mary’s mediating presenceTwo 6th-century Gospels, Bartholomew’s and Gamaliel’s, preserve the important and credible information of the Resurrected Christ appearing to His Mother. The first of these texts also conveys the understandable and reliable news of Mary’s role as a moral guide in the Church of Jerusalem. Notably, it provides information about the suspension of infernal penalties for the condemned who were visited by Mary after her Assumption, arranged by Jesus at certain times. Although not historical and theologically debatable, it is significant for equating Christ’s descent into Hell with Mary’s. Among the texts that transmit this, the most important is the Apocalypse of Paul, preceding 240 A.D.Post-Biblical Sources: The Apostolic Fathers of the 2nd-3rd Centuries and the Construction of Primitive MariologyThese are the patristic and liturgical sources, in which, of course, the historical fact is transfigured into a doctrinal or cultic sense, but always exists and finds in them a singular confirmation, becoming the cultural foundation for its elaboration, which in turn supports it. Among the patristic sources, particular emphasis should be placed on the Creed of Melito of Sardis, which in the 2nd century attests against the Ebionites and Docetists the incarnation of the Word of God in Mary’s womb. The Apostolic Symbol of Hippolytus of Rome, in the 3rd century, confesses the same thing for the same purpose. The anti-Arian writings of Gregory of Nyssa, in the 4th century, attest to the reality of Christ’s complete humanity by referring to Mary’s historical and concrete motherhood. The testimony of Epiphanius of Salamis, in the same century, reminds the Collyridians that Mary, the Mother of Jesus, was a human being and not a goddess.As a preliminary overview, we list the most significant patristic testimonies regarding the historicity of Mary: Ignatius of Antioch, who attests to Mary’s virgin and divine motherhood. Justin, who emphasizes the truth of her virgin conception. Irenaeus of Lyon, who insists on the same argument. Tertullian, who, with his characteristic vigor, insists on Mary’s real motherhood and her conception by the Holy Spirit. Clement of Alexandria, who further elaborates on Mary as Virgin and Mother. Origen, who reflects at length on her theological and evangelical figure, emphasizing her perpetual virginity. The more the centuries pass, the more historical data merge with dogmatic and spiritual treatment, but historian Eusebius of Caesarea still provides important arguments, for example, to demonstrate Mary’s Davidic lineage, while Epiphanius reprises relevant Jewish-Christian news about her life, especially regarding the facts of her Dormition. Authors such as Athanasius, the Cappadocians, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, Marius Victorinus, Hilary of Poitiers, Ambrose, Augustine contribute to the doctrinal development of the historical framework of Mary’s life, while Jerome adds his personal contribution as a philologist and scholar. This is just to mention the most prominent authors.Extra-Biblical Sources: Archaeological, Papyrological, and Historical-Literary Testimonies about Mary of NazarethThese are those non-Christian ones, though strongly hostile, they have great historical value. They are, first and foremost, the Jewish ones, intended to converge in the Talmud between the 5th and 6th centuries, but dating back to the 2nd century, when they were already refuted by Justin in the “Dialogue with Trypho”. There are numerous rabbinic citations of a certain Ješûa‘ ben Pandera or Panteri/Pantera, taken up as we will see, by Celius, who spoke of a certain Jesus, son of a hairdresser, Mary, and Pantter, a Roman soldier, corrupting the Greek “partténos” and using a name of person quite rare among Rome’s warriors, thus slandering the virgin birth of Christ and expelling him from the “progenie” of Abraham and the House of David. Despite their blasphemy, this slander is historically of paramount importance: no one would have ridiculed the virgin conception of Jesus if it were not believed by Christians and, therefore, if its narrative were not prior to these texts, that is, dating back to the first half of the 1st century. Indeed, the first dispute on this topic is attested in the Acts of Pilate, which, already between the end of the 1st and the beginning of the 2nd century, report, among the Jewish ones, both the voices of Christ’s calumniators regarding his birth and those of those who defended his cause, albeit, however, only and understandably, making him the son of Joseph. Thus, at the time of our pre-Talmudic sources, the parthenogenesis of Christ would already be quite ancient, not only to be discredited but also debased.Moreover, this rude slander has the merit of erasing the evidently founded news of Jesus’ Davidic descent, which would thus have lost a fundamental title to be recognized as Messiah, as well as his undeniable belonging to the chosen people. Finally, the hairdresser’s trade seems to be a parody, and therefore a confirmation, of the oldest news that made Mary one of the weaving virgins, on which we will have the opportunity to speak. It is precisely on the basis of the harshest Pharisaic calumny against Christianity that Celius wrote his “True Discourse”, in which he obviously takes up the news just reported. This is the only important pagan source that concerns our discourse. Disappeared rightfully from history, Celius’ book is told to us through the erudite refutation of Origen. In conclusion, the four typologies of historical sources catalogued allow us to identify with precision the key events in Mary of Nazareth’s life: the multiple attestation in various sources and the double irreducibility to Jewish or pagan thought give direct confirmation, while the continuity and homogeneity with the evangelical message guarantee mutual coherence and conformity with the environment of origin, confirming them indirectly.Deepen your studies: explore MariologyTheology MarianaMarian apparitions and the Master’s Program in Mariology.To deepen the study of historical and biblical sources on Mary, consult the Encyclical Redemptoris Mater by Pope John Paul II.