In Mark 6:3, Jesus is referred to by his community in an unusual way. The text was originally written in Greek, but to paraphrase a bit, an Aramaic translation would equate to something like:

"Is this not the builder, Yeshua bar Maryam?"

I have been led to believe that this (i.e., referring to a Jewish firstborn son by his mother's name instead of his father's name) would be a breach of etiquette in first century Galillean society, and implies that the identity of Jesus' father is in question. According to this interpretation, the implication is that Jesus is a bastard, born out of wedlock.

Would this be considered offensive to a Jewish firstborn son in the first century?

Note: I asked a similar question on Mi Yodeya, and a commenter said it would mean that Jesus' father was either unknown or not Jewish.

  • 1
    Interesting that the Synoptic parallels Luke 4:22 and Matt 13:55 read instead “the son of Joseph” and “the son of the carpenter.”
    – Susan
    Commented Aug 12, 2015 at 23:58
  • Mark never mentions Jesus' father. Commented Aug 13, 2015 at 7:54
  • Mod Notice: Comments are not the place to debate theological issues. They can be used to request clarifications or suggest improvements to posts, but let's not use them as a make shift debate platform. You can use the Biblical Hermeneutics Chat system if you want to discuss something.
    – Caleb
    Commented Aug 14, 2015 at 7:17

5 Answers 5


In Mary in the New Testament, Raymond Brown, Joseph Fitzmyer, and Karl Donfried offer a fairly balanced presentation of the main interpretations of the phrase "son of Mary" that have been suggested by scholars:

  1. Mark is trying to stress the human characteristics of Jesus in response to "God only" view of his audience. That is, Joseph is not mentioned because Mary is his only human parent.
  2. Mark is hinting at the virginal conception of Jesus. That is, Joseph is not mentioned because the unusual nature of a "son of [a woman]" passage was a sort of "code phrase" for early Christians by which they understood that Jesus lacked a human father.
  3. The villagers intended the comment as a slur and Mark simply reported it. That is, the villagers were implying Jesus was illegitimate.
  4. The phrase was simply the most natural way to refer to Jesus because Mary was more well known (either to the villagers or Mark's audience), possibly because Joseph was long dead.

In "Son of Mary", Harvey McArthur examines these theories in detail, plus another viable theory not mentioned in Mary in the New Testament:

  1. Mark didn't write "son of Mary" - that phraseology was the result of textual corruption either through scribal error or to avoid a (different) theological difficulty.

He also mentions a minor variation on #4:

  1. That "son of [a woman]" was the normal way to refer to children of widows.


McArthur examines the the Old Testament cases of a person being identified as as "son of [a woman]", of which there are about a dozen. These generally fall into one of two classes:

  • Secondary identification. That is, cases where both parents are mentioned at some point (but not in the same passage) and either the father had children by multiple women or the mother was important to link the child to an important ancestor.
  • Matriarchal families. That is, cases where the mother was an important figure and the father was not, so only the mother is mentioned.

However, a couple "miscellaneous cases" where there is no clear reason for the use of the mother's name remain. Usually because there is no context to determine the reason for the usage. McArthur thus examined three ideas possibly found in the Old Testament:

  • The father was non-Jewish and the Mother was Jewish. In favor of this possibility, at least three (reasonably contemporary to Mark's text) Rabbis are identified by their mother in Rabbinic literature. Against it, is that none of these three were identified by the mother's name, but instead only her place of origin. Leviticus 24:10-11 and I Kings 7:13-14 might fit into this category.
  • The mother was widowed (#6 above). The evidence for this is pretty weak as all the suggested passages (I Kings 17:17, Luke 7:12, I Kings 7:14, II Chronicles 24:7) are ambiguous at best.
  • The child was illegitimate (#3 above). On this point, McArthur writes:

    There is no doubt that this custom prevailed in some cultures, but the curious fact is that in the case of Old Testament and Rabbinic literature it is difficult to demonstrate that this practice was followed.

The cases for this possibility are pretty weak. There is no indication in Leviticus 24:10-11 that the child is illegitimate; Judges 11:1 ("son of a harlot") is explicit already - there is no reason to imagine "son of [woman] = son of harlot" based on that passage. The only clear case of an insult/doubtful parentage being intended is in the third century Sifre to Deuteronomy. However, the phrase used is "the son of Vespasian's wife", not "the son of Domitilla". As such it's not a strong parallel and McArthur suggests the round-about way of saying it was perhaps used specifically because "son of [woman]" wouldn't carry an illegitimate connotation.

Additionally, the idea is contradicted by Leviticus Rabbah 13 which says:

The last Darius was the son of Esther, clean from his mother's side and unclean from his father's side

and similar passages. If the "son of [a woman]" carried an automatic association of illegitimacy, such identifications would presumably be worded differently or have some clarification.

Theological explanations

Explanations #1 and #2 above offer theological reasons why Mark may have used the phrase "son of Mary". While these ideas are not completely without reason (for example, stressing Jesus' humanity is arguably a common theme in Mark), they face significant difficulties. First, there is no "gloss" by Mark explaining his usage, so any suggestion of what he is thinking is speculative. Second, the words are clearly intended by the villagers to belittle Jesus. If Mark wanted to hint at the virgin birth, the mouths of opponents would be an odd place to put it. Thus, McArthur and Mary in the New Testament both reject these proposals as unlikely.

Widow explanation

As alluded to above, #6 has the significant problem of being largely unattested to in literature. McArthur sums it up well:

When one considers the function played by genealogical identification through the father ... it would seem obvious that the abandonment of [it] in the event of the father's death would be inconsistent with the intention of the system. Hence until explicit evidence is found ... it will be well to delete this hypothesis.

Illegitimate child explanation

The illegitimate child view (#3) suffers from the same problem as the widow solution - it is not clearly attested to in any Biblical-era literature to such a connotation would be inferred merely by saying "[child] son of [woman]".

Additionally, if this would have been a probably connotation than one must explain why Mark would have passed the insult along without any explanation whatsoever. Based on the evidence, it seems at most it would have been a subtle slur. If Mark wanted his (Greek) audience to understand the slur, why did he not explain it? Elsewhere, he adds glosses to explain even basic Jewish culture.

It has been suggested that perhaps Mark himself didn't realize it was a slur, but that begs the question. If the slur was not obvious, then why think it a common slur at all?

Finally, if Joseph honored his commitment to Mary and raised the child as his own, as suggested by the Biblical accounts, there is no reason for the villagers to have even suspected Jesus to be illegitimate. And if the non-Mark Biblical accounts aren't true, then we have absolutely no evidence to go on. This verse certainly can not itself be used of doubtfulness of the Joseph accounts when trying to determine the meaning of this verse.

Due to these difficulties, both McArthur and Mary in the New Testament dismiss this proposal.

Textual explanation

A significant variation on Mark 6:3 exists which reads ὁ τοῦ τέκτονος υἱός καὶ τῆς Μαρίας "the son of the carpenter and Mary" instead of ὁ τέκτων ὁ υἱὸς τῆς Μαρίας "the carpenter, son of Mary". As such, one explanation (#5) is that the alternative reading is actually the original text.

In support of this variation, is the fact that the oldest extant copy of Mark (P45) and several other very old copies and translations (e.g. the Old Latin). Against it is that the traditional reading also has early attestation and somewhat more numerous witnesses overall. It seems like both versions were in circulation at an early date, so either is reasonable and the issue is decided on other grounds.

The traditional text is usually picked because it is thought more likely that a copyist intentionally or subconsciously moved the passage closer to the (more popular) Matthew than moved it away for it. Additionally, there doesn't seem to be a strong motive to change from to text to "son of Mary" (and as such "son of Mary" would be a accident of a change intended to avoid "son of [a man]").

However, this view is not without it's weakness. Assuming Marcian priority, it is much easier to derive Matthew's "Is not this the son of the Carpenter?" and Luke's " Is not this the son of Joseph?" from "Is this not the son of the carpenter and Mary?" than from "Is this not the the carpenter, son of Mary?" While one of Matthew/Luke may have added Joseph, it seems unlikely they both would have made the same exact substantial change. Additionally, In Against Celsus (c. 180), Origen responds to a claim by Celsus that Jesus was a mere artisan by saying the Gospels make no such statement. This implies that his copy of Mark (which would predate P45) had the alternate text.

So, no firm conclusion can be drawn on the original wording of Mark, leaving the textual explanation as viable.

Natural conversation explanation

The final plausible explanation for this use of the phrase "son of Mary" is that this was simply the most natural way for the villagers to refer to Jesus. McArthur points out that the phrase "son of [a woman]" is rare at least in part because the phrase "son of" occurs primarily in genealogical contexts in extant literature. In a patriarchal society, it is hardly surprising that one would (usually) be tied to their ancestors through their father. However, this fact does not say anything about usage in other contexts.

It is clear from the villagers' rhetorical questions in Mark 6:2, that what they are getting at is not Jesus birth, but rather his social standing in general. To paraphrase, "Who is this ordinary nobody who thinks he can teach us as if he is some great scholar?"

Thus it seems the simplest explanation is that, for whatever reason, the villagers identified Jesus and his siblings primarily through their mother. (The likely reason is that Joseph was long dead; however, this is distinct from the widow hypothesis [#6] because it is not a genealogical description, but rather casual usage.)

This explanation would also likely explain most of the "miscellaneous" cases in Biblical and extra-Biblical usage - McArthur examines several of them at finds the simple explanation is far superior to trying to force the usagage into some other category. There is no context as to what the "special" meaning of "son of [woman]" means in these cases, because there is no special meaning. It is simply a way of identifying the person in question.

Both McArthur and Mary in the New Testament endorse this explanation, although McArthur leaves open the textual corruption option.


The most plausible explanation for the origin of the "son of Mary" phrase in Mark 6:3 is that Jesus' townsfolk actually said something along those lines because that is simply how they knew him. Mark didn't change or explain the phrase, because it was not seen as an insult in informal conversation. In the words of McArthur:

I conclude, therefore, that the ancient scholars were correct in assuming that the phrase had no special connotation beyond the fact explicitly stated,1 and that modern scholars have been led astray by regarding "son of Mary" as a problematic phrase.

If that theory is incorrect, the next most plausible explanation is that an early copyist (intentionally or subconsciously) changed the original "the son of the carpenter and Mary" to "the carpenter, the son of Mary" to avoid implying a human father and did not see the change as problematic, because "song of [a woman]" did not have an automatically negative connotation.

If we reject that theory, all that is left is "we don't know why". The remaining theories - widowed mother, illusion to illegitimacy, theological considerations - lack any concrete evidence and are thus based entirely on speculations.

1 McArthurs' footnote here reads:

See H. SMITH, Ante-Nicene Exegesis of the Gospels, vol. III, London: S.P.C.K., I927, p. 53 ff. There is no exegetical exploitation of the "son of Mary" phrase.

  • 1
    Thanks for an excellent answer! Re: Widows - When I mentioned this possibility, I received the following response in the Mi Yodeya chat room: "@WadCheber NO the son of a dead man is referred to by his fathers name. If the father died befor the son was born he might be named Reuven ben Reuven (I have known people like this)."
    – Wad Cheber
    Commented Aug 15, 2015 at 1:22
  • Thanks. We have all easily accepted the myth that the phrase is an insult and anomaly, without questioning it. It simply means son of a woman, naturally born, ordinary man.
    – Michael16
    Commented Jun 17, 2022 at 5:15

I am a little bit confused by your statement that “the Aramaic translation would equate to something like…” In fact there is no need for “would”. The Aramaic (Syriac, Pshitta) translation of Mark 6 :3 is :

ܠܳܐ ܗ݈ܘܳܐ ܗܳܢܳܐ ܢܰܓ݁ܳܪܳܐ ܒ݁ܪܳܗ ܕ݁ܡܰܪܝܰܡ ܘܰܐܚܽܘܗ݈ܝ ܕ݁ܝܰܥܩܽܘܒ݂ ܘܰܕ݂ܝܳܘܣܺܐ ܘܕ݂ܺܝܗܽܘܕ݂ܳܐ ܘܰܕ݂ܫܶܡܥܽܘܢ

which is exactly like the Greek:

οὐχ οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ τέκτων, ὁ υἱὸς τῆς Μαρίας, ἀδελφὸς δὲ Ἰακώβου καὶ Ἰωσῆ καὶ Ἰούδα καὶ Σίμωνος

that is: “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon?” (KJV)

There is no “Yeshua bar Maryam” in any version of this passage. He is simply “the carpenter, the son of Mary” (Syriac: naggārā brāh d-maryam). Why is he called the carpenter? Presumably because he was the son of the carpenter Joseph, although I actually suspect that ὁ τέκτων is merely a textual corruption for ὁ τοῦ τέκτονος υἱός, as in Mt 13:55.

  • I edited the question for clarity. And on a side note, your Aramaic text is showing up as a series of squares on my screen.
    – Wad Cheber
    Commented Aug 14, 2015 at 0:15
  • @WadCheber What browser are you using? This has happened to me using an old version of Safari, but it renders correctly in the updated version or Firefox or Chrome.
    – Susan
    Commented Aug 14, 2015 at 1:03
  • @Susan - An old version of Safari:)
    – Wad Cheber
    Commented Aug 14, 2015 at 2:00

Maybe Jesus regarded himself as “the son of Mary” to emphasize the importance of the mother and honor the female in a culture that, In general, dehumanized women.

  • Welcome, Judith, from another fairly new member! If your response doesn't seem to get much attention, it's likely because this is an older question (four years old). Most commenting is done on current questions. That doesn't mean NOT to respond to older questions, just that you may be answered with silence. I only saw your response because I got an alert "new user's answer to an old question."
    – Papa Pat
    Commented Dec 20, 2019 at 3:40

What are the implications of calling Jesus “the son of Mary” in Mark 6:3?

Mark 6:3 (NASB)

" Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of [a]James and Joses and Judas and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?” And they took offense at Him."

Since no mention of Joseph is made, the implication is the possibility that Joseph may have died. This is also indicated by the fact that Jesus requested that John look after his mother.

John 19:26-27 (NASB)

26 "When Jesus then saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing nearby, He *said to His mother, “Woman, behold, your son!” 27 Then He *said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!” From that hour the disciple took her into his own household."

On previous occasions Jesus is referred to as to as the son of Joseph.

John 6:42 (NASB)

42 "They were saying, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does He now say, ‘I have come down out of heaven’?”


"Bathsheba... the wife of Uriah the Hittite" 2 Samuel 11:3, in this case, the servant is implicitly saying to David, She is a married woman!

Nazareth did not follow the signs concerning the birth of Jesus, those spoken in Judah and Bethlehem, about John the Baptist, and the prophecies of Anna and Simeon, finally, the family of Jesus was seen with distrust in Nazareth.

So let’s look at the episode of Jesus in the Temple when he was twelve.

The Boy Jesus at the Temple 41 Every year Jesus’ parents went to Jerusalem for the Festival of the Passover. 42 When he was twelve years old, they went up to the festival, according to the custom. 43 After the festival was over, while his parents were returning home, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem, but they were unaware of it. 44 Thinking he was in their company, they traveled on for a day. Then they began looking for him among their relatives and friends. 45 When they did not find him, they went back to Jerusalem to look for him. 46 After three days they found him in the temple courts, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions. 47 Everyone who heard him was amazed at his understanding and his answers. 48 When his parents saw him, they were astonished. His mother said to him, “Son, why have you treated us like this? Your father and I have been anxiously searching for you.”

49 “Why were you searching for me?” he asked. “Didn’t you know I had to be in my Father’s house?”[f] 50 But they did not understand what he was saying to them.

51 Then he went down to Nazareth with them and was obedient to them. But his mother treasured all these things in her heart. 52 And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man.

Mary kept the prophecies about Jesus secret, but here Jesus expounded. How did the community of Nazareth understand this second father?

The phrase "Yeshua bar Maryam" means that the fatherhood of Jesus is doubtful for the community of Nazareth.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.