Only one member of her immediate family is alluded to in the NT, viz. her .sister (Jn W^). Tliis sister of the Virgin was most probably Salojiie, wife of Zebedee, and mother of James and John. We know from tlie other Gospels (Mt 27*, Mk 15*) that Salome Avas present at the Crucihxion, and it is quite in accordance with St. John's manner to allude thus to his own mother without mentioning her name. The other opinion, that this sister was Mary 'of Clopas,' would (cf. Westcott, in loc., also Mayor, St. James, pp. xix-xx) 'involve the most unlikely .supposition that two sisters bore the same name.' The family of the Virgin was connected in some way with Elisabeth (17 crvyyevis aov, Lk P''), but what tlie degree of relationship was cannot be known. According to a theory brought forward in connexion witli the harmonizing of the two genealogies of our Lord, Mary was a cousin of Joseph her husband (art. ' Genealogy of Jesus Christ' in Smitli's DB), but such a theory has little to recommend it. That her family was but a humble one may be inferred from her betrothal to Joseph 'the carpenter,' especially if there be any truth in the tradition as to the disparity of their ages
2. Some time after their betrothal, which came generally among the Jews a year before the mar- riage, the angel Gabriel was sent from God to Nazareth to tell her of One who was to be born of her, and who should ' be called holy, the Son of God ' (Lk P-'). The simplicity of the narrative bears on it the stamp of truth. Mary was troubled {5i€Tapdx9rj), we are told, at the saying, yet she believed at once. Her words, ' How shall this be ?' ought not to be taken as an expression of doubt, like the words of Zacharias, ' Whereby .shall I know this?' They are rather to be regarded as an 'involuntary expression of amazement' (Grot, 'non dubitantis sed admirantis'). Equally im- possible is it to suppose that she believed that the child promised would be the fruit of a future union with Joseph. The words of the angel forbid any such idea. Yet, on the other hand, we need not suppose that the full meaning of the angel's words was at once grasped. There are evident signs in the narrative that this was not .so, but nothing that we read mars the exquisite simplicity of her words of humble submission, ' Behold the handmaid of the Lord ; be it unto me according to thy word.' Soon after ('in these days,' Lk P") the departure of the angel, Mary set out to pay the visit to her kinswoman, wliich his words would naturally sug- gest to her. The .supposition that her journey was
MARY, THE VIRGIN
MARY, THE YIRGIX
141
due to the intention of Joseph to put her awaj- is a baseless one. Rather, as it has been said, ' the tirst but the ever-deepening desire in the heart of Marj-, when the angel left her, must have been to be away from Nazareth, and for the relief of opening her heart to a woman, in all tilings like- minded, who perhaps might speak blessed words to her' (Edei'sheim, Life nncl Ti/ncs. i. p. 152). She arose with haste and set out to seek that relief in the house of her kinswoman in the far-ofi" hills of Judah.
What the city of her destination was we cannot know for certain. Whatever it was, it was distant from Xazareth by almost the whole length of the land. According to a tradition which maybe correct (cf. ExpT xv. [1905] 245 f.), it vcas'Ain Earim, a village an hour and a half west of Jerusalem.
The opinion held for so long that this city was Juttah is, according to Buhl (GA P p. 163), quit« worthless, having origin- ated with Reland in the beginning of the ISth century.
When Mary reached lier kinswoman's house, a fresh surprise awaited her in the greeting of Elisa- beth : ' Blessed art thou among women.' No longer is Marj- to Elisabeth simply ' kinswoman,' she is ' the mother of my Lord.' Doubtless what she had heard from Zaeharias of the promises made in regard to their son would fill Elisabeth with hopes of a speedy appearance of the Messiah, and now, by inspiration (Lk V^), she knows that the mother of her Lord is before her. Her greeting is in reality a psalm, brief though it is and overshadowed by the still more wonderful hymn which it called forth in response. The ' Song of Mary ' is ' mod- elled on the OT psalms, especially the Song of Haunali (1 S 2i'^*), but its superiority to the latter in moral and spiritual elevation is very manifest.' That Mary should ' fall back on the familiar ex- pressions of Jewish Scripture in this moment of intense exultation ' is very natural (cf. Plummer, ,SY. Luke, p. 30).
Niceta, bp. of Remesiana, in his treatise de Psalmodice Bonn, names Elisabeth as the author of the Magnificat. This is supported by the Old Latin MSS Vercellensis, Veronensis, Rhedigeranus, and by Irenaeus. Origen also knew of the reading, though he did not accept it. The eridence adduced, however, does not seem sufficient to override the verdict of all the rest of antiquity, that the Hymn is Mary's and not Elisabeth's. See, further, art. Magnificat.