But why could not the “other Mary”, the mother of James and Joses, be the mother of Jesus? After all, she was also present at all key moments!
That’s right. But then why, in John’s Gospel, did the Risen One only manifest himself to Mary of Magdala?
I do not know ... But is it not said elsewhere in the Gospel that James and Joses are two “brothers” of Jesus?
That is right but the word “brother” is to be taken broadly.
You mean “disciples” then? But did not you previously say that ...
No, no. They are neither “spiritual brothers” nor brothers in the strict sense. We must pay attention to the Semitic substratum: James and Joses are relatives of Jesus.
You mean cousins? I know this theory.
This is especially the most likely explanation.
It seems obvious that if this Mary had been Jesus’ mother, the evangelists would certainly not have indirectly characterized her as the mother of “James” and “Joses”. In the stories of the Passion, the burial, and the visit to the tomb, they would necessarily have designated her as his own mother, not that of his brothers.
It seems logical ...
Moreover, the wording “Mary the mother of James and Joses” is significant: It clearly designates James as the eldest, Joses as being younger. In addition, Matthew would certainly not have named her: “the other Mary”.
It is quite obvious, for the evangelist, that she can only be “the other Mary” in relation to the main “Mary”! Various designations such as “the other Mary”, “Mary the mother of James and Joses”, “Mary the of James”, “Mary the of Joses”, “Mary of Clopas” ... are precisely there to make a distinction between this woman and the mother of Jesus. They serve to designate the one who is not the mother of Jesus.
“The other Mary” and Mary of Clopas are therefore one and the same woman?
Yes. She is Mary’s sister-in-law. Jesus’ mother has only one son while she has four: James, Joses, Simon and Judas. Note she is always mentioned in second position in the Gospels, either after Mary of Magdala or after the mother of Jesus. She cannot therefore be, for reasons of precedence, the mother of Jesus.
But this “other Mary” is always presented in the company of Mary of Magdala, not in the company of the mother of Jesus!
Let me summarize ... The expression “the other Mary”, used by Matthew, clearly suggests that there are, in all and for all – at least during the Passion and the visit to the tomb – only two women named Mary: the first, “the one”, associated with the second, “the other”.
So, only two Marys and not three.
And as we know the identity of the second one – she is the aunt of Jesus – the first one is necessarily his mother. Now, what is the name, in the narrative, of this female figure who is always cited first in the Synoptic Gospels but who should not be confused with “the other Mary” because she is also called “Mary”?