The Historical Sources on Mary: Bible and Apocrypha

The problem of the sources on Mary of Nazareth precedes that of the sources on Jesus Himself: the canonical Gospels provide limited and theologically intentional information. Apocryphal texts such as the Protoevangelium of James fill the silence with narratives elaborated in the second century. This article critically examines each of these sources, biblical, apocryphal, and extra-biblical, distinguishing what belongs to history from what belongs to theology, for a methodologically sound understanding of the historical figure of Mary of Nazareth.

Research on the historical Jesus can and must be accompanied by a parallel one on the principal figures of His life, for no one lives alone in history. Specifically, special attention is due to Mary, the Mother of Jesus, who has recently been defined as the most important and most successful woman in human history. Her presence is still effective today in the arts, in literature, in high and popular culture, and even in supernatural phenomena, making her extraordinarily current.

For Mary, as for her Son, it is possible to trace the concrete circumstances of her existence by means of the same historical method, starting from the premise that the figure of Mary is, after Jesus, the most important for the foundation of Christianity. In fact, the founding myths of Christianity, or the accounts that lie at the basis of its existence, understanding the word myth as a paradigmatic event, historical or not, almost always have the Son and the Mother as their protagonists (the Incarnation, the Birth and the Infancy cycle, the beginnings of the Public Life, the Passion, the Death, Pentecost) or presuppose a role for her (the Resurrection, the Ascension), while others, though extra-biblical, concern exclusively the life of the Mother (such as the Assumption).

Jesus and Mary are intimately bound together in the birth of Christianity, as the architects of all its principal fundamental paradigms, that is, of those facts that reveal the key truths of the Faith and direct the conduct of its followers. It is erroneously said that Paul was the most important after Jesus for the birth of Christianity: in a historical religion, primacy belongs neither to the one who spreads the message nor to the one who develops it, but to the one who reveals it, incarnating it in his own existence. This is what Jesus and Mary do.

On the other hand, the life of the Son and of the Mother, if left under the light of the dogmas, runs the risk of fading into Docetism and, implicitly, of depriving the dogmas themselves of their foundation. The research is necessary and, in the present state of knowledge about the historical Jesus, easier and richer in elements, beyond the mists of the demythologization of the last century.

It may be said that for the Mother, as for the Son, the same paths of investigation have been traveled, although for the former with less intensity: from a mythical to a legendary figure in academic culture. Mary is the first-century Jewish woman about whom we know the most. First we distinguished the Blessed Virgin of faith from the historical Mary, and then approached the latter with caution, until we could address her historical problems with great ease, thanks to the vast quantity of sources available.

The biblical sources: the silence of Mark, the accounts of Luke (Lk 1-2), and the presence of Mary in the Johannine writings

On Mary, the mother of Jesus, we have a rich typology of sources: biblical, apocryphal, panegyrical, liturgical, profane, and post-biblical. Beginning with the biblical sources, we take as already established the information concerning both the dating of the Gospels and their composition, which I have already defended and argued in other works, as well as what concerns their harmonization and the analysis supporting their historicity, including the accounts of the parthenogenesis of Christ. In this way we shall avoid burdening this analysis with data already known.

We identify three principal biblical sources, grouped into two typologies, to which we relate some apocryphal and post-biblical, that is, patristic, sources of a similar nature. The first is the master midrash of the Infancy Gospels. It was, originally, a very archaic Jewish composition, yet at the same time very different from similar ones in the Jewish tradition. The original text of the Infancy of Jesus, written on the basis of the testimony of Mary herself and of people very close to her, prior to the canonical Gospels and included in the primitive Gospel used for preaching, unlike the Jewish midrashim, does not create narratives ornamented around biblical passages, but seeks biblical passages that support the narratives. This inverse process, through successive reworkings, developed a free and lived theological and existential inquiry, preserved a historical core with its corresponding geographical and cultural setting, captured secondary allusions to Jewish cultural themes implicit in the facts and in their meaning, made explicit philological and prophetic references, and taught through an edifying thematization of the divine word, thus also becoming a Talmudic midrash.

In this typology we have, first of all, the Gospel of Matthew, since it is chronologically the first, which nevertheless makes a strict selection of the facts available in the memory transmitted orally or in writing. The historical data it transmits are the Davidic descent of Jesus, and therefore the insertion of Mary into the clan of the descendants of the ancient king, as well as His parthenogenesis. In addition to this, it informs us that the Holy Family had a house and residence in Bethlehem and that it had to abandon it because of the persecutions of Herod, fleeing to the flourishing Jewish communities of Egypt. From there they moved to Nazareth in order to escape the potential threat of Archelaus.

Following Matthew, the author of the Ascension of Isaiah, in the first half of the second century, composed a midrash intended to demonstrate the perpetual virginity of Mary, transmitting other historical data, such as the admission by the inhabitants of Bethlehem of the mysterious origin of Jesus. The post-biblical texts of Matthean derivation came from the pen of important Fathers over several centuries. Ignatius of Antioch attests to the reserve that surrounded, for understandable reasons which he reads in a supernatural key, the events of the conception of Jesus by Mary, whom he affiliates to the House of David.

Justin also testifies that Mary, evidently on her mother’s side, being the cousin of a priest and therefore of the tribe of Levi, was of Davidic lineage, thus justifying the endogamous marriage to the Davidic Joseph. Tertullian states that she was born in Bethlehem, transmitting this information to John Chrysostom and to Clement of Alexandria.

The Gospel of Luke (Lk 1-2): the source of the “Poor of God” and the infancy narratives

The second biblical source is the Gospel of Luke, which, although later, uses the original source on the Infancy of Jesus with a greater wealth of detail. The material employed has a different coloring from the one chosen by Matthew. It is intelligible only within the milieu of the “Poor of God” and was certainly preserved with care among Mary’s relatives, especially in Nazareth. In the background one reads a desire to mark the difference from Davidic messianism. Luke, however, overcomes these prejudices deriving from the mentality of the various witnesses and transmits the information with scrupulous historicity and theological precision.

Mary, married to Joseph and living with him in Nazareth before beginning conjugal life together, conceives by the Holy Spirit, fulfilling the prophecy of Davidic messianism in a way different from what the readers of the text of 2 Sam 7:12 might have understood. For this reason, the recognition of her motherhood comes not from her husband’s relatives but from her own, that is, from Elizabeth and Zechariah. Having moved to Bethlehem on the occasion of the census of Quirinius, Mary at first has a provisional residence in the house of the Davidic relatives, where she gives birth in precarious conditions. The Child is recognized by the shepherds, by Simeon and Anna. After fulfilling the Law, whose implied meaning I have discussed on another occasion, the Holy Family returns to Nazareth. When Jesus is twelve years old, His parents take Him to Jerusalem, where He is the protagonist of an emblematic episode, remaining in the Temple and showing precociously His personality and the mystery that accompanies Him.

This tradition of Luke was followed by many post-biblical authors, who had Mary born, and not merely living, in Nazareth.

The Gospel of John: the theological framework of the Marian scenes, the Johannine prologue, and Jn 19:25-27

The other typology of biblical source is the catechetical one, with which the narrative of the Gospel of John that deals with Mary may be associated. The information about her is always set 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 named, is attested. When she is presented at Cana, it is as mediatrix for all the faithful and within the context of a narrative that makes her the prototype of the person of faith. This model is perfectly expressed by Mary at the foot of the Cross.

Complementary apocrypha: the Gospel of Nicodemus (1st c.) and Gamaliel (6th c.) on Mary at Calvary

Following this source are other apocrypha: the Gospel of Nicodemus, from the end of the first century, takes up the narrative of the Mother at Calvary. The Gospel of Gamaliel, much later (sixth century), makes explicit the co-redemptive meaning of that presence. The Gospel of Peter, between 130 and 150, dramatizes the story by showing the states of mind of all the figures of the Passion around the Crucified One in order to reveal their true feelings.

Justin, Melito of Sardis, Irenaeus of Lyons, and Tertullian: the soteriological meaning of Mary’s presence at the Cross

Other patristic sources confirm the soteriological meaning of that presence and, indirectly, its historicity: Justin, Melito of Sardis, Irenaeus of Lyons, and Tertullian. A change in the meaning of the Marian episode at Calvary occurred only with Origen, who asserted, breaking with the most ancient tradition, that the Mother was assailed by doubt concerning the Resurrection of bodies. The Alexandrian was followed and emulated in different ways by Ephrem the Syrian, Basil the Great, Theodotus of Ancyra, Amphilochius of Antioch, Paulinus of Nola, Cyril of Alexandria, Hesychius, Pseudo-Nyssen, Pseudo-Chrysostom, and Philoxenus of Mabbug.

The most ancient tradition: Mary at the foot of the Cross and Christian memory before the Council of Ephesus (431)

Nevertheless, this illustrious array of Fathers does not change the fact that the most ancient tradition attests that Mary remained at the foot of the Cross, conforming herself to the intention of the Son. Before its definitive vindication with the condemnation of Origen’s memory at the Second Council of Constantinople, this tradition was kept alive in Christian memory by the Sibylline Oracle III, 316, by Gregory of Nazianzus in the poem Christus Patiens, by Romanos the Melodist in Hymn XXXV entitled “The Lament of the Mother of God”, by the Staurotheotókia of the Byzantine liturgy of the sixth century and, much later, by Symeon Metaphrastes Logothetes in the Oration on the Lament of Mary in the tenth century.

The apocryphal sources: the Protoevangelium of James (2nd c.), Pseudo-Matthew, and their literary and theological status

The apocryphal sources are very important for the reconstruction of the part of the life of Mary of Nazareth that is not in the Gospels. Contrary to what is believed, they are reliable, obviously taking into account a sound historical criticism where necessary.

The Protoevangelium of James (2nd c.): the Levitical tradition of Mary’s family clan and the converted Jewish priests

The first source worth citing is the Protoevangelium of James, from the second century, which gathers that Levitical tradition going back to the family clan of Mary of Nazareth and presumably shared by priests who adhered to Christianity and who, before that, were close to the Essene School. This tradition attests that the relatives of Jesus were counted among the priests, although they were Davidic, that is, they did not belong to the Tribe of Levi. This is probably due to the fact that Joseph, as we shall see, belonged to an order of consecrated men. Mary herself is called Daughter of David, despite her undoubted kinship with Levitical clans.

Mary was born in Jerusalem, near the Probatic Pool, of Joachim, presented as a just and wealthy figure of the Old Testament type, and of Anne. She entered the order of the virgins of the Temple, was educated by the clergy and, while still an adolescent, was joined in marriage to Joseph, older than she, according to the Jewish custom of protecting virgins and in view of a prestigious but as yet unclear future, which seems to be oriented toward a virginal conception, according to the beliefs common in those circles. There is no need to take literally the report of the old age of Mary’s husband. Otherwise it would make no sense that the two moved to Nazareth, living from his work, where the Annunciation took place, which was recounted not only by Joseph but also by the priests with whom, evidently, the couple maintained relations at a distance. From there they returned to Bethlehem, the native land of the husband, for the census. At the fifth milestone of the road between Bethlehem and Jerusalem, on the border between Benjamin and Judah, near the Tomb of Rachel, in a deserted place in the region of Ephrathah, Mary gave birth to Jesus in a dark underground cave. The account, evidently precise in its historical reconstruction, is tinged with Docetism when it asserts a mythological datum: the Son is born by a condensation of light and the place became a “most luminous cave.” The Protoevangelium also affirms, in accordance with Matthew and Luke, that the Mother remained a Virgin during and after the Birth, presenting as proof the testimony of a midwife and of Mary’s friend Salome.

In the Protoevangelium certain prophecies are attributed to Mary concerning the two peoples, the just and the unjust, who follow two opposite ways, bringing her close to the Old Testament prophetic movement and recalling her declamation of the Magnificat and that of the Benedictus on the part of Zechariah. The tradition of the Protoevangelium was taken up, without particular amplifications but with a complete reworking, by the Latin Church in the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew of the seventh and eighth centuries and in the Book of the Nativity of Mary of the years 846-849.

The Gospel of Philip (3rd c., Gnostic) and the Pistis Sophia: the opposition to the canonical Gospels concerning the filiation of Christ

The Gospel of Philip, a Gnostic text of the third century or even older, was significantly opposed to what was taught by the canonical Gospels and by the Protoevangelium. This text would not have emphasized the natural paternity of Joseph if the pneumatic conception of Jesus had not been older. In the same period, around 240, the Pistis Sophia attempts to annex the pneumatic conception of Christ to Gnostic mythology, but does not dare to deny it.

The Panegyric of the Judeo-Christian Church on Saint Joseph: an apocryphal text from the fourth and the fifth centuries and how it parallels the tradition of the Assumption

The Panegyric of the Judeo-Christian Church on Saint Joseph, attributed to Jesus Himself but composed by a Judeo-Christian of the second century, had a commemorative function regarding the Patriarch and was read beside the Nazarene tomb of the family of the Father who raised Christ on August 2, March 5, and December 22. In it is found the confirmation of what is narrated by the Protoevangelium of James about the marriage between Mary and Joseph and about the birth of Jesus, specifying that it took place in Joseph’s own house, that is, presumably that of his relatives, since the Child was lodged in the quarters intended for the animals and not even in those for the guests, possibly occupied by other blood relatives because of the census.

Panegyric on the Dormition and Assumption of Mary: a text attributed to Melito of Sardis and apocryphal literary strata (4th c.)

Another source of capital importance is the Panegyric of the Judeo-Christian Church to be read on the anniversary of the Dormition and Assumption of Mary, a text of the second century at the latest, but very probably much older. Ignored by the Great Church until the fifth century, it is known as Dormitio Mariae and has come down to us in three complementary forms, from different periods: the first, the oldest, Ebionite but Catholic, that of the Relatives of Mary, from the second and third centuries. The second, from the fourth and fifth centuries, that of the Johannites of Monophysite tendency. The third, Jerusalemite and Chalcedonian, from the fifth to the seventh centuries.

The apocryphal sources are fundamental for the reconstruction of the life of Mary of Nazareth that is not present in the Gospels. Contrary to what is thought, they are reliable, provided they are submitted to an adequate historical criticism.

The oldest form of the Dormitio Mariae: apocryphal tradition of the 4th-5th c. and the testimony of Epiphanius of Salamis (†403)

The oldest form of the Dormitio Mariae is made up of three complete documents and several fragments very close to the original, as may be deduced from the Ebionite and Judeo-Christian doctrinal elements. This form is attributed to the unknown Leucius of the second century, who wished to engage in polemic against the heretical Ebionites who denied the divinity of Christ and made of Mary a Power of God. The author, however, was accused of heresy by the Greek Fathers, who had already forgotten the doctrinal characteristics of the Judeo-Christian Church. The text is rich in important and certainly authentic information.

Mary lived 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, together with the Book of Mysteries and a palm of paradise. The Virgin prepared herself for death with ablutions and prayers. In the course of the account there appear the characteristics of the Judeo-Christian belief attributed also to Mary: the fear of the snares of the angelic powers, faith in the doctrine of the two ways, in the cosmic ladder, and in the eschatological kingdom of good and evil.

The agony and the funeral of Mary in the apocryphal accounts: narrative structure and parallels with the death of Moses (Dt 34)

At the agony of the Virgin there were present John, come from Sardis, Peter, come from Rome, and the other apostles returned from the place of their mission. Among the Twelve, John is accused of negligence in the custody of the Mother of Jesus, Paul is regarded 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 the Mother of Jesus. Mary’s soul is entrusted by Jesus to Saint Michael, while her body is buried by Peter near the Kidron River. After three days, the body is taken up into the Earthly Paradise by the psychopomp Angels.

The second form of the Dormitio Mariae: an apocryphal variant and its relation to the tradition of the Johannine school (5th c.)

The second form of the Dormitio has a nominal Monophysite tendency and engages in polemic both with the Ebionites and with the Phantasiasts or Aphthartodocetae, considered enemies of the Apostle John. This form includes three Greek and Latin documents of the fourth and fifth centuries and some sermons of the sixth and seventh centuries. Apart from the defense of the dogma of the Divine Motherhood defined at Ephesus and upheld by Cyril of Alexandria, this series of texts possesses no other doctrinal peculiarities. Historically, it adds some details worthy of belief, in which Mary’s funeral ceremony takes place east of Jerusalem, on the top of the Mount of Olives, where there was a house of the Evangelist’s relatives, located in Gethsemane, where the Mother of Jesus resided when she was his guest.

The third form of the Dormitio Mariae: an elaborated variant and the context of Palestinian Marian piety (5th c.)

The third form of the Dormitio is completely purified of Ebionism and Monophysitism. Purely Chalcedonian, it is linked to the shrines of Golgotha, of Bethlehem, and of Holy Sion, where the various events are set. This form draws on different Syriac texts going back to the teaching of the Apostle James the Less, and it is composed essentially of four texts. The most significant piece of information that complements those supplied by the previous sources is that Thomas, arriving after the funeral, wished to open Mary’s tomb in order to venerate her for the last time and found that the body had been taken up into Heaven.

The Assumption of Mary: the metaphysical dimension and the historical problem of the narrative archetype of the dormitio

The heavenly moment of the Assumption cannot be understood as historical in the proper sense, since it occurs in a metaphysical dimension. The historical problem arises only for the archetype used to describe its modality, that is, the role of the Archangel Michael and her reanimation in the Earthly Paradise. It is a model different from that of the Resurrection of Jesus, but, like the latter, it has no identifiable earlier literary archetype.

The Gospels of Bartholomew and of Gamaliel (6th c.): the apparition of the Risen One to the Mother and the presence of Mary as mediatrix

Two Gospels of the sixth century, that of Bartholomew and that of Gamaliel, preserve the important and credible information of the apparition of the Risen One to the Mother. The first of these texts also transmits the understandable and reliable report of Mary’s function as moral guide in the Church of Jerusalem. Notable is the information about the suspension of the infernal punishments for the damned visited by Mary after the Assumption, granted by Jesus at certain periods. Although it is not historical and is doctrinally questionable, it is important for the equating of Christ’s descent into Hell with that of Mary. Among the texts that transmit it, the greatest is the Apocalypse of Paul, earlier than the year 240.

The post-biblical sources: the Apostolic Fathers of the second and third centuries and the construction of early Mariology

These are the patristic and liturgical sources, in which the historical datum is obviously transfigured in a doctrinal or cultic sense, but always exists and finds in them a singular confirmation, becoming the cultural foundation of their elaboration, which in turn sustains it. Among the patristic sources, particularly noteworthy are the Creed of Melito of Sardis, which, in the second century, attests against Ebionites and Docetists the incarnation of the Word of God in Mary’s womb. The apostolic Symbol of Hippolytus of Rome, which, in the third century, confesses the same thing for the same purpose. The anti-Apollinarist writings of Gregory of Nyssa, which, in the fourth century, attest the reality of the complete humanity of Christ precisely by referring to the historical and concrete motherhood of Mary. The testimony of Epiphanius of Salamis, who, in the same century, reminds the Collyridian women that the Mother of Jesus was a human being and not a goddess.

By way of an overview, we list the most significant patristic testimonies on the historicity of Mary: Ignatius of Antioch, who attests the virginal and divine motherhood of Mary. Justin, who underlines the truth of the virginal conception. Irenaeus of Lyons, who insists on the same argument. Tertullian, who, with the force that characterizes him, insists on the real motherhood of Mary and on her conception by the Holy Spirit. Clement of Alexandria, who dwells at still greater length on Mary as Virgin and Mother. Origen, who reflects at length on her theological and evangelical figure, underlining the fact of her perpetual virginity. The more the centuries pass, the more the historical data merge with dogmatic and spiritual treatment, but the historian Eusebius of Caesarea still provides important arguments, for example, to demonstrate Mary’s Davidic kinship, while Epiphanius takes up relevant Judeo-Christian reports about her life, especially in relation to the events of the Dormition. Authors such as Athanasius, the Cappadocians, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, Marius Victorinus, Hilary of Poitiers, Ambrose, and Augustine contribute to developing doctrinally the historical framework of Mary’s life, while Jerome adds to that contribution his own as a philologist and scholar. This only to mention the greatest authors.

The extra-biblical sources: archaeological data, papyri, and historical-literary testimonies on Mary of Nazareth

These are the non-Christian ones and, although they are strongly hostile, they have great historical value. They are, in the first place, the Jewish ones, destined to flow into the Talmud between the fifth and sixth centuries, but going back to the second century, the period in which they are already refuted by Justin in the “Dialogue with Trypho”. There are countless rabbinic citations of a certain Ješûa‘ ben Pandera or Panteri/Pantera‘, taken up, as we shall see, by Celsus, which spoke of a certain Jesus, son of a hairdresser, Mary, and of Panther, a Roman soldier, corrupting the Greek “parthénos” and using a personal name quite rare among the warriors of Rome, thus slandering the virgin birth of Christ and expelling Him from the progenie of Abraham and from the House of David. Despite its blasphemy, this slander is historically most important: no one would have ridiculed the virginal conception of Jesus if it had not been believed by Christians and therefore if its narration were not earlier than these texts, that is, going back to the first half of the first century. In fact, the first dispute on this theme is attested in the Acts of Pilate which, already between the end of the first century and the beginning of the second, report, among the Jewish ones, both the voices of the slanderers of Christ’s birth and those of the ones who defended His honor, making Him, however, only and understandably, the son of Joseph. In this way, at the time of our pre-Talmudic sources, the parthenogenesis of Christ would already have been quite old not only to be demythologized but also to be degraded.

Moreover, this crude slander had the merit of erasing the evidently well-founded report of the Davidic descent of Jesus, who would thus have lost a fundamental title for being recognized as the Messiah, as well as His undoubted belonging to the chosen people. Finally, the trade of hairdresser seems to be a parody, and therefore a confirmation, of the more ancient report that made Mary one of the weaver virgins, of whom we shall have occasion to speak. It is precisely on the basis of the worst Pharisaic slanders against Christianity that Celsus wrote his “True Discourse,” in which he obviously takes up the reports just related. This is the only important pagan source that concerns our discussion. Deservedly vanished from history, Celsus’s book is known to us through the learned refutation of Origen. In conclusion, the four typologies of historical sources catalogued allow us to identify with precision the key events of the life of Mary of Nazareth: the multiple attestation in diverse sources and the twofold irreducibility to Jewish or pagan thought give direct confirmation, while the continuity and homogeneity with the evangelical message guarantee their mutual coherence and their conformity with the environment of origin, confirming them indirectly.

Deepen your studies: explore MariologyMarian TheologyMarian apparitions and the Postgraduate Program in Mariology.

To deepen the study of the historical and biblical sources on Mary, consult the Encyclical Redemptoris Mater by Pope John Paul II.