Mary and St. John

[debraran]

I was wondering when reading the Bible, why no mention is given of Mary and John after the resurrection. I believe 100% Jesus visited Mary, but no menton, even in passing is said. He gave her to John, but no mention of “the disciple Jesus loved took care of his mother etc” in the scriptures we have. She was at the cross with others, it always bothered me that although women are mentioned a lot for that time, our Mother Mary wasn’t. Joseph I understand, his presence would have caused confusion.
I also wonder why more isn’t said about what he did and saw…John says there is more, but the writers almost act like what they put is enough, any more is not needed. I would have been bursting with joy to tell more. Compared to the “before death” gospels, they are tiny and that is what are religion is based on, not so much before, but Easter, his rising.

One priest told me it’s a mystery, he seemed to think it was short too, that the resurrecton should have been given more writing, but it’s something we just wont know about here I guess. Converstations he had with others other than the diciples would hve been wonderful to read.
Anyone have thoughts on why scripture had so little of Jesus after?

 

[ESMDHokie77]

They were bursting to tell more, not necessarily bursting to write more. The Apostles went to the ends of the Earth to share the gospel. Communication is different now with higher literacy rates and high speed communication, back then you would have to speak in person to reach the masses.

 

[bmullins]

Many of them also thought that the Parousai was going to happen ‘imminently’. They probably didn’t think there was a need to write it down, because they were still around to tell the story themselves. Writing a book back then and copying it was a painstaking process, not a fast way of getting the story out to others. If you were in a hurry to get the message out to as many as possible, it would be much faster to teach someone word of mouth and then send them to share it, which is what they did.

I’m kind of confused by some of the other stuff you mention. You mention John and then “the disciple whom he loved”, who is John. Then you mention that there is no mention of Mary again, but it mentions her at the cross, and in the upper room at Pentecost. We also have Tradition, which tells us much of the in between. (For instance, the reason that Mary didn’t go to the tomb with the others is because she had already been visited and told that Jesus was alive. There was no reason for the mother to Go because she already knew!)

 

[Garyjohn2]

We must remember that the Gospels are not history accounts, nor are they biographies. The Gospel message was preached (spoken) throughout the world and spread that way. Some of the letters and writings we have from the time were gathered and canonized, but it is not the primary way the faith was spread.

So if they are not biographies or histories…what were they? We have to look at each Gospel to see what the target audience was and why it was written. They were accounts, but accounts with a purpose other than historical documentation.

It’s hard to not read the Bible from a modern critical view point. We have to try to put ourselves in their shoes…the writing “guidelines” for recording stories, biographies, and even history were way different then than are were now. It was probably assumed the readers knew much already that we don’t! It doesn’t make our desire for more detailed information lessen any, but it helps us understand it at least.

 

[MarcoPolo]

I agree with the others who pointed out that in those times, they didn’t necessarily feel something important needed to be “written.” They wrote and spoke. If the deposit of faith was exhausted in Scripture alone, then the question of why they didn’t write more makes more sense. But there were even times when they wrote that they valued personal speech over writing. For example, from John himself:2 John 1:12 Though I have much to write to you, I would rather not use paper and ink, but I hope to come to see you and talk with you face to face, so that our joy may be complete.

 

[debraran]

I understand the gospels and how they were written, etc. I took a great course with our pastor over Lent on who wrote them, when, for what audience, what was in one but not the other, etc. It seemed even more clear though, they oral tradition they used seemed to stop after his resurrection in regard to what Jesus said or did. How can you say there is more, and leave it at so little…this was a resurrection!! : )
The same way they went on for chapters (in a sense) about the woman at the well, or Pilate or Peter or a miracle, they didn’t do that later. The gospels were written later, not then, so the same oral tradition that had the writers write the “before resurrection” text, could have been after the same way. I don’t understand how Jesus talking to anyone after rising from the dead, especially someone not an apostle wouldn’t get in. Wouldn’t seeing him after his death by others be worthy of a few paragraphs? Everything was so graphic, especially in John, not “People saw him, or 20 people saw him,” but what he said or did.

This priest on EWTN said he understood the issue, but he didn’t have any explanation that could be answered this side of the heavens.

I think it would help many that say more was written before and Jesus was “just a good prophet/rabbi” see how many other than those close to him, saw and believed. He came for us all, coming after death was for us also…not just his closest friends.
Faith though and grace help most of us though, thank God for that always and is blessing to beleve without seeing him.

 

[Holly3278]

Maybe the Gospels don’t write much about the Blessed Mother of God because she didn’t want them to? Maybe out of humility she asked them not to write much about her?

 

[debraran]

I could see that to a degree, but she wouldn’t want to hurt anyone’s faith, she was his mother. Someone told about his birth, at least to the writers in Luke and them losing him for a few days and presentig him at the Temple, etc.

My thing is as I said, the same oral tradition that made the Bible, that word of mouth, that had stories sometimes, very long stories, told, why would that stop when he came back? Why not hear what a woman in the villiage said when she saw him, if she did? Why not hear the joy in seeing him from a devoted believer or someone else like Thomas that was sad and now full of joy?

Who knows really, but most oral traditions, like with Roots, the movie, have long, detailed accounts and I miss the ones that came later. You can imagine, but I wish they told more.

Some non-beleivers think John’s “I can tell you more, but it’s too much” was fluff because even orally, no one wrote down any other stories many years later…one day we will thought or at least if we are lucky enough, there will be many to ask questions to in heaven.

 

[Della]

I think the Gospel accounts dealt so much with what Jesus said and did before his resurrection and not much after may have to do with the sense that the resurrection and acsension were the culmination of it all and so those who witnessed these events, especially after the resurrection, were much more preoccupied with just living it rather than in recording it. It’s like preparing for a wedding. There’s a lot of activity beforehand, but no one talks much about their honeymoon because it’s too intimate a thing to talk about.

As to why there isn’t more about Mary, it’s simply that Jesus was the focus and anything told about her was recorded only as it was connected to him. Mary is barely mentioned in the Upper Room, for instance. Artists have depicted her as the central figure, out of respect for her as the Mother of God, but that’s all hindsight. The Apostles little understood Mary’s full role at the time.

This was something the Church pondered on after her assumption–as if God had wanted to keep his special one for us, who would come after, as our hope and example. St. John saw Mary exalted in heaven, but otherwise, she was the secret dove hidden in the cleft of the rock, to quote the Song of Songs. St. Louis de Montfort wrote about this, as well as St. Alphonsus de Liguori.

 

[debraran]

Della, I see your point, but they didn’t have to record it then, but orally, the same way stories were recorded before, it could have been later. Can you imagine seeing Jesus after he rose, speaking to him, and not wanting to tell others what he told you? (not the apostles,but others that saw him) That was what the whole thing was about, sharing his resurrection,what many didn’t understand before, seeing him, recording what he said, would have helped a lot. Just one encounter with someone in the town, they didn’t have to record another book.
Some don’t doubt the “before” because of the detail, but the “after” because of the lack of stories.

And I say to you (partly in jest) I wish more people would be like your friends and not want to tell me about their vacations/honeymoons…they have pics/videos/FB updates, less is more sometimes

 

[Della]

Della, I see your point, but they didn’t have to record it then, but orally, the same way stories were recorded before, it could have been later. Can you imagine seeing Jesus after he rose, speaking to him, and not wanting to tell others what he told you? (not the apostles,but others that saw him) That was what the whole thing was about, sharing his resurrection,what many didn’t understand before, seeing him, recording what he said, would have helped a lot. Just one encounter with someone in the town, they didn’t have to record another book.
Some don’t doubt the “before” because of the detail, but the “after” because of the lack of stories.

And I say to you (partly in jest) I wish more people would be like your friends and not want to tell me about their vacations/honeymoons…they have pics/videos/FB updates, less is more sometimes

I know what you’re saying, but consider that most people were not directly commissioned as apostles, who were the authors of what writings we have, but they did witness to what they saw and heard to others. So much so that the Church grew by leaps and bounds in the first century.

Jesus never asked anyone to write about his life or record his words and actions. Not that the apostles were wrong to do so, but he did tell them to take the Gospel into the whole world, starting right where they were. That was their first priority, so they only wrote what they felt was absolutely necessary about the events they saw and heard.

What I meant about the honeymoon is this–that people can be so overwhelmed by an experience they just can’t articulate it to others, who didn’t have the same experience. We see this in the various apparitions of Mary. How can one describe the ineffable? Words fail, but the change in their lives and the things they did still speak volumes. That is their legacy and their testimony recorded in the Early Church Fathers.

We may be curious about certain aspects of Jesus’ and Mary’s life and actions that aren’t recorded, but we have enough to know what we ought to be, what we need to believe, and how we are to conduct our lives. I sometimes think God didn’t want us to have too many details so we wouldn’t put our focus on what others knew but on what God wants us to be and to do. Does that make any sense? I’m just throwing this out as speculation, of course. So, take it for what it’s worth.