As soon as Peter understood that he was not having a vision but was actually delivered from Herod’s sword (Acts 12:11), he went to the home of Mary, the mother of John Mark (Acts 12:12)! Something we should notice, and it can be disconcerting, is that the Gospel writers, including Luke’s work in Acts, simply mention a name, often without any other detail that would help us identify the person named. Who is Mary, the mother of Mark, and why would she be so important that her home is Peter’s first choice to visit, before he flees Jerusalem? This particular Mary has Peter’s trust to tell James, the Lord’s brother, and anyone else that needed to know Peter’s whereabouts (Acts 12:13-17)?
The Gospel writers offer a of number interesting prospects for this one who is called Mary, the mother of Mark, i.e. unless she is someone no one knows up to this point in time. Yet, Luke seems to expect his Messianic readers to know who this Mary really is. Theophilus, if he is the high priest and son of Annas, would know only that she is John Mark’s mother, because, as far as we know, Luke’s is the only Gospel narrative Theophilus has in his possession.
First, we have Mary, the mother of Jesus (Luke 2:16), she didn’t have a son named Mark (Matthew 13:55), so she can be eliminated right away. Secondly, we have Mary, called Magdalene, who was one of Jesus’ financial supporters (Luke 8:2-3), but nothing is listed concerning her that would lead us to believe she is this Mary. Thirdly, we have Mary, the mother of James (Luke 24:10) who also has a son named Joseph (Mark 15:40), and she helped prepare the spices with which she and other women intended to anoint the body of Jesus; but if Mark is her son, why is she identified elsewhere as the mother of James the Less (one of the Apostles)? Certainly he would be more renown and a better identifier of the Mary than Mark would be, if Mark were the son of this Mary. Next, we have Mary, the wife of Clopas who stood with Mary Magdalene and Jesus’ mother and her sister at the foot of the cross (John 19:25). Finally we have Mary, the sister of Martha (Luke 10:38-39), but nothing is said of her in the Gospels that would lead us to believe she is the mother of Mark. Matthew tells us of one he calls the other Mary and lists her with Mary Magdalene (Matthew 27:61; 28:1), but she probably is one of the Marys listed above. Matthew seems to believe his readers would know exactly who she was.
The other Mary couldn’t be Magdalene, because that Mary is always listed with her. Comparing the Gospel accounts will show who was at the foot of the cross. Luke is the only Gospel writer who uses ambiguous terms in describing those present, saying only that women were present (Luke 23:49, 55).
| Matthew 27:55-56 | Mary Magdalene | Mary, mother of James & Joseph | Mother of the Zebedee children | |
| Mark 15:40 | Mary Magdalene | Mary, mother of James the Less & Joseph | Salome | |
| John 19:25 | Mary Magdalene | Mary wife of Clopas | Jesus’ mother’s sister | Jesus’ mother |
According to the above, Mary the mother of James and wife of Clopas could possibly be the other Mary who is mentioned in this manner only by Matthew. However, Mary the sister of Martha is not specifically mentioned in the Gospels as someone present at the foot of the cross, which is quite odd, given her importance in John’s Gospel. So, Mary, Martha’s sister may be a match for Matthew’s other Mary as well.
On the other hand, Matthew’s reference to the **other** Mary may indicate that there is only one other Mary besides Mary Magdalene (remember, Mary the mother of Jesus is not a consideration at all). If, therefore, there is only one other Mary besides Mary Magdalene, then, not only must Mary the mother of James the Less and Joseph (also the wife of Clopas) be the other Mary of Matthew (Matthew 27:61; 28:1), but Mary Magdalene must also be Mary, Martha’s sister. So, if there are only two Marys in the Gospel narratives (besides the Mother of Jesus), which of these Marys (Mary Magdalene or Mary the Mother of James) is most probably the mother of Mark?
The one Mary is mother to James the Less, but nothing is said of him in Acts. However, Joseph, her other son (Matthew 55-56; Mark 15:4) could be the same Joseph the Apostles surnamed Barnabas (cf. Acts 4:36)! This would mean that Mary, called Magdalene and sister to Martha (who lived at Bethany) was John Mark’s mother, because Joseph, called Barnabas by the Apostles, was Mark’s uncle (Colossians 4:10). This also means that the other Mary was Mary Magdalene’s mother. Both seemed to have lived in Jerusalem, and most likely, their home was used as the upper room where Jesus and the Apostles prepared the Passover. This is why Peter immediately went to their home. It was undoubtedly also used as a meeting place where believers worshiped. Peter expected to find believers there. He may have expected to find James, the Lord’s brother there, but instead gave Mary instructions for him when he hadn’t.
Why is all this important? It seems to me that the people mentioned in the Gospels must have had a place in the 1st century Church, and many of them would have been leaders and should have been mentioned in Acts or Paul’s epistles. If this is logically true, then there must be a reason for Luke’s ambiguity in referring to them. Could this be because he didn’t wish to reveal their identity to Theophilus, his addressee and member of the powerful priestly clan of Annas?
Smoodock's Blog 
13 responses to “Mary, the Mother of Mark”
Most likely these people were were well known throughout the Church by reputation through oral tradition. The New Testament writers presumed their readers would know who they were talking about. “Mary, the mother of Mark” was identification enough — it told the reader that he was talking about Mary, the mother of Mark, and not any other Mary (Mary was, of course, a very common Jewish name). Before the development of surnames, people were generally identified simply by their relation to someone else well known.
You might be interested in this post of mine where I followed a similar sort of reasoning, trying to figure out all the Jameses:
Greetings Joseph, and thank you for reading and for your comment. I enjoyed reading “Too Many James” and even liked your little rabbit trail as you referred to it. I also visited your facebook page and admire your desire to bring Christians together–if only that could be. I don’t mean to appear to despair of the idea; certainly we shall be together as one when Jesus returns, but I wonder about the prospects on this side of that event. Nevertheless, I encourage you in your efforts.
We are a bit similar in our walk with Christ. I used to be Roman Catholic and converted to evangelical Christianity, while you were raised evangelical and found Christ leading you to convert to Catholicism. It is strange to see how Christ works, isn’t it? At another time in our lives both of us may have thought the other was making a mistake! :-)
Anyway, I don’t share your understanding concerning the Jameses or the Marys. You seem to be comfortable with not drawing a conclusion. This doesn’t make my understanding of James or Mary correct, but it is a difference between our looking at Scripture. While your understanding concerning exact verification is true, I would argue that the Scriptures show Jesus at work in the Gospels and brings the work to perfection among certain individuals during his Passion and then is visible for a few of these people in Acts. I intend to post something in a few days to a week about Barnabas and who he might be identified with in Jesus ministry. Again, will it contain something scholars would consider verifiable? …probably not, but it does fit in with my belief that Philippians 1:6 is something we can see in the Gospels among certain key disciples. You touched upon this near the end of your post when you said: “All in all, it seems as if Jesus’s evangelic enterprise may have been something of a family affair…” While I don’t believe Mary was a virgin her entire life, I do believe Jesus key disciples, including many of his Apostles, came from three or four families. While I can’t prove it, it certainly is a lot of fun developing what “could have been true” if the lumpers are closer to the truth than the splitters. :-)
Lord bless you and in your efforts to bring Christians together,
Eddie
Thanks. :) That was definitely one of my favorite posts to research and write.
I’m pleased to meet a fellow traveler, even if we just passed each other going opposite directions. ;-) Speaking of others thinking we’re making mistakes: I didn’t experience a whole lot of opposition in my conversion to Catholicism. My parents and family were supportive (if a little incredulous — it’s still better not to talk too much about Catholicism to my dad). There was really only one friend who gave me a hard time, and she backed down too after we got into a shouting match about it and she realized that my heart was really in it. I had been drifting for a long time from my evangelical roots, and felt pretty disconnected to begin with. I wonder if something like that didn’t happen to you.
As a historian — and this is one of the things that led me to Catholicism — I feel like it’s a fallacy of the doctrine of sola scriptura to presume that we have all the sources and aren’t missing any information. We have to remember that there were twenty, thirty, maybe forty years between the events of Christ’s earthly ministry and the writing of the earliest Gospel. For those decades, the Church wasn’t just sitting around waiting patiently for God to give them the New Testament so they could begin preaching the Gospel. The original mode of transmitting the Gospel was by oral preaching and teaching, by the Apostles going out into the world and spreading it by word of mouth. The churches they established were many and far-flung, but they were in touch with each other, by believers traveling among them, by the Apostles returning to visit the churches like Paul wrote about, bringing news and teaching. And we have to accept that we just don’t have all of that. The writers of the New Testament didn’t record absolutely everything that happened or was going on between the churches. The Gospels, by their own admission, aren’t even a full account of everything Jesus said and did — and such a thing isn’t even possible. No writer can record everything, not even a divine one — because He’s limited by the very earthly medium of paper and pen. The books of the New Testament very frequently refer to events we don’t know about and can only infer, to people we don’t know (as in this case), even to letters we don’t have (1 Corinthians 5:9, 7:1).
Now, Protestants believe that everything they need for salvation is recorded in the Scriptures — and I like to think that God really did give you enough to get you into heaven, since He surely knew ahead of time that you guys were going to bolt. ;-) But that doesn’t mean you have everything in the Scriptures. Sometimes, we just have to admit that we don’t know things. In this case with the Marys, it’s clear that Luke assumed his readers would know Mark’s mother without him having to introduce her or explain who she was. Assuming that she has to be somebody he had already mentioned is just the same as the Catholic lumpers who wanted to identify all of the Jameses with each other. ;-)
It’s very compelling to me to study the Bible and discover all I can about the people and places in it — that’s what I enjoy about your blog; you’re very persistent about digging at these things — but my salvation doesn’t hinge on who Mark’s mother was or whether Jesus’s brothers were Apostles or even whether they were his brothers. Since I know I don’t have all the facts — not about the Early Church and certainly not about God — I’m content to just let some things be mysteries, things I wonder about but won’t know until I get to ask. I believe and have faith in the things I know for sure, and that’s that the Gospel is true and Jesus is my Savior.
Hello again, and your welcome; it was a pleasant read. You include a lot more color in your blogs than I find I am able to do–I’m jealous. :-)
Concerning my bolting, I am from a strong Irish background, very close to the boat. All hell broke loose when I left Catholicism. My Dad went to his grave probably believing I was headed for hell. My uncles on my Mom’s side couldn’t understand and for awhile, I wasn’t welcome among them. But they are wonderful people. They just needed some time. We all love one another now, and it shows, which I am delighted to report, since they are the ‘big brothers’ I never had. I grew up with them. They were all in school when I was a little boy. I and my Mom are the eldest of eight siblings.
I understand that we don’t have all the information that we would like. Paul tells us that today we know only in part, which makes it pretty weird not to receive one another as brethren. Who has all the answers? …certainly not you or me–we admit that. Nevertheless, there are so many who still cling to their own denominations as either the best in Christianity or the only one in Christianity. Even today I cannot receive Communion with my Catholic brethren, unless I try to sneak up to the Table of the Lord, but I’ll never do that. I respect their opinion.
I agree that faith says it all. I trust the Lord to lead me, just as you do. I believe the Scriptures as much as they are opened up to me and trust that they are the words of God spoken by frail men such as you and me. On a side note, however, I don’t go along with the modern scholars who date the New Testament way into the 1st or even into the 2nd centuries. Oral culture is one thing but stupidity is quite another. The disciples were quite aware of their responsibilities both to that generation of believers and to those who spoke against them. The church was spread out. It wasn’t a nation collected together. Writing was a must, and it was also a must to write it down as a testimony against those who where their enemies–like Theophilus, who I believe was one of our persecutors–the high priest and son of Annas, who was, himself, largely responsible for the death of Jesus. Anyway, that’s my rabbit trail and a pet peeve of mine. :-)
I do believe everything I need to know in order to be saved is there. Facts about Jesus and what he said is there. Paul says to be saved I need to believe in my heart and confess with my lips that Jesus is Lord and was raised from the dead by God (Romans 10:11). That’s the theology and the practicality is found in Luke 23:42. The rest is commentary.:-)
Now, I am not trying to claim that all my bolting, Protestant brethren believe it is as simple as that, but that is how I see it. Figuring it all out is a lot of fun for me, as I believe and hope it is for you. So, we don’t agree on some things. Jesus will set us straight later, and that’s fine with me. Meanwhile, we can be friends and express the love of God with one another, and that’s a good thing. You know, I did a Sunday school study on the book of Acts a few years ago and fell in love with the book. I’ve been studying it and Paul ever since. The point I mean by bringing that up is this, James, the Lords brother, and the believing Pharisees appear to be ultra-conservative. The Apostles appear to be more moderately inclined, while folks like Stephen, Luke, Philip and Paul were the liberals of the group. The one group believed a little differently than the other two. They probably couldn’t see eye to eye about certain things in the Scriptures, but they all worshiped the same Lord and didn’t doubt that of the other two groups with whom they couldn’t agree on certain matters of varying importance. I like that and wish it were true of the Church today–the whole Body of Christ. Anyway, no matter what the deal is, I’ve learned to love those who disagree with me; it’s their right in Christ. I don’t mean to say that I don’t fly off the handle now and again, but that is so much less often today than it was years ago. I see God really dealing with me on this, and it pleases me to pieces.
I’m glad I met you, Joseph, and I’m glad to know what you are trying to do in the Body of Christ. That also pleases me to pieces! :-)
Lord bless you.
I think our conversions really were the exact opposite of each other: I was born and raised in the Deep South, where Catholics are very much a minority. To my knowledge, I don’t have any family members, even distant, who were ever Catholic (at least, not since the Reformation), other than a great-uncle who converted after marrying a lady of Italian descent (and those possible Scottish Jacobites way back when).
The only real friction with my parents over my conversion is exactly what you point out, the lack of full communion in the Eucharist. My dad has expressed offense that he’s not able to take Communion with me, interpreting it as Catholics believing he’s not really a Christian. My mom, on the other hand, is more upset that I can’t take Communion with her and with the rest of the family. I understand and agree with the reasons for it, but it’s one of the things that makes me saddest. I’m very glad, at least, for the Church’s belief that we are all still one in Christ through Baptism.
That’s an interesting thought about Theophilus being a persecutor. I’d never really thought about it, presuming he was a friend, being named Theophilus — but that name in itself doesn’t really say anything about in what way or even what God he loved. Paul was definitely a liberal, even a radical — as Christ Himself was.
I’m very glad to meet you, too, Ed. :) I look forward to more and deeper delvings into Acts. Lord bless you, too.