Annotation [unnumbered]

“Mary [the mother] of James, and the mother of Joses, etc.” — Matthew 27:56

Whether she who is called by the Evangelist the mother of James and Joses was the mother of Christ.

Chrysostom, homily 89 on Matthew, in certain exemplars — both Greek and Latin — has, in the exposition of this passage, some words signifying that Mary, who here by the Evangeli-

by the Evangelist is called the mother of James and Joses, is Mary the mother of Christ. But since this opinion can easily be bent toward the heresy of Helvidius — who asserts that Mary, after the birth of Christ, bore other sons — I judge those exemplars [to have been] corrupted by heretics; although there are not lacking [those] who defend these words of the homily, saying that Mary is called mother of James and Joses not according to truth, but according to dispensation [economy] — because these were the sons of Joseph, the spouse of Mary, by another wife. Chief among these is Theophylact, who in the commentaries on this passage speaks thus: “But he calls Mary the Mother of God the mother of James and Joses. For James and Joses were sons of Joseph by his former wife; yet, because the Mother of God was called the wife of Joseph, [she was called] mother — that is, stepmother.” He repeats this same [thing], expounding Mark chapter 15, Luke 24, and John 19. But Euthymius, in the commentaries on the gospels, refutes a defense of this kind, writing thus: “Since there were many [women], he enumerates the more notable. Certain [people], then, say that the Mother of God is she who among the Evangelists is now indeed named mother of James and Joses, but sometimes ‘Mary of James,’ and at times ‘Mary of Joses.’ For these were the sons of Joseph; and just as their father was called her husband, on account of the dispensation, so again these [are called] sons of the Virgin. But this saying seems absurd. For, first, what forbade [him] to call her mother of Jesus? — especially since in the preceding narrations he had for the most part so called her. Then it would also be absurd that, in the following passages, Magdalene should everywhere be set before her, and that she [Magdalene] should be shown to have been more fervent than the Mother of God. Whence we suspect that this was some other Mary, who was mother of James the Less and of Joses — not of the sons of Joseph, but of others, who were of the seventy disciples; for there were many of such similar name among the Jews. But it is likely that the Mother of God then stood nearer to the cross than the other women — and that by the burning of [her] heart [bowels] overcoming fear; and perhaps also she went about, since on account of the goads of nature she could not remain in the same place; and afterward she remained by the sepulcher, and beheld each thing. But if we accept this, it must be asked why the Evangelists did not mention her. Because it was known concerning her that she was present, and did what belongs to mothers; and therefore they did not [even] write of her lamentation — for they amply satisfied [us] by declaring that she followed the Son as he taught. But it behooves [us] both to know this and that, and to accept what is more conformable to nature.” Jerome, in the book Against Helvidius, discourses at length upon this saying of Matthew, against that same Helvidius, who abused the testimony of the Evangelist.