Matthew follows Mark, but slightly improves his overwhelmingly negative picture of Jesus’ mother.

Matthew makes Mary look a tad better than does “Mark.” But not by much!

Last time we saw how the unknown, anonymous author called “Mark” considered Mary and the biological kin of Jesus—it was overwhelmingly negative. But “Mark” is not the only Gospel. Neither is it the only New Testament text to speak of Mary.

Our attention turns to “Matthew” next, particularly his depiction of the mother of Jesus. Watch the video here…

Why is “Matthew” Different than “Mark”?

Clearly the Gospels evolved. As the stories of the Risen Jesus spread geographically throughout the Mediterranean world, they took on new meaning as contexts changed and multiplied. As the meaning of the Jesus-stories changed, so too new meanings were found in Jesus and those related to him, both followers and kin. Therefore, some big changes happened between “Mark” (ca 70 CE) and “Matthew” (ca. 80s CE).

According to Vatican II’s Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, or Dei Verbum (§19), the Pontifical Biblical Commission’s, “Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels” (§6-9), and the Universal Catechism (no. 126), the Gospels emerged through a three-stage process of development—

1. First Stage—These are the original words and deeds of Jesus.
2. Second Stage—The oral proclamation of the Apostles and disciples (including catechesis, narratives, testimonies, hymns, doxologies, and prayers).
3. Third Stage—This would be the Gospel documents themselves.

Understanding the Gospels means understanding these stages. Quite often they all are on display in the same Gospel passage.

The Recontextualization of Mary in “Matthew”

Both the document called “Matthew” and Mary’s depiction within it could not escape the forces of recontextualization and changing meanings. Watch here…

“Matthew” depends on “Mark,” and is another Jesus group’s attempt at an improved “Mark 2.0.” As scholars like Felix Just show us, “Matthew” corrects or omits various grammatical, literary, historical, and geographical errors. Indeed, there are many ways to show that “Matthew” came after and was dependent on “Mark.”

“Matthew” also includes an “Infancy Narrative” for honor purposes to fortify what “Mark” proclaims about Jesus. As with the very different “Infancy Narrative” of “Luke,” the Matthean birth story of Jesus is mostly invented by the author. The only way ancients got accounts written about their childhood is if they died and became famous. To die and be raised as Cosmic Lord and Messiah made Jesus famous, so, eventually, two different authors wrote two irreconcilably different Infancy Narratives.

Not Biographies and Not Enough Yet for Mariology!

As we have explained before, these two different stories were not written to be fitted together like jigsaw puzzle pieces into one Western linear biographical account. Neither were they written to satiate Western 21^st century curiosity about the Holy Family. They certainly were not composed for Marian purposes. Please understand that “Matthew” is focused on Jesus, and how he is understood, not his mother. His interests are not Marian!

“Matthew” follows “Mark” pretty close. Almost accidentally, because of how Mary is featured in his Infancy Narrative (Matthew 1—2), the negative view “Mark” has of her is softened somewhat. But we still have a long way to go before we can have enough material from which to evolve Rosary or acknowledge an Immaculate Heart!

Let’s explore more, tomorrow.