How old was Mary when she gave birth to Christ?

Another fun topic from Tony, eh?

RileyG said:

I always assumed she was a young teen because people didn't (necessarily) live long back then.

Click to expand...

Even before the civil war it was common for women to have four or five children by the time they were 20. They needed children to take care of them when they got older.

Diamond72 said:

Mary was 12 years old. She was raised in the temple. All the other girls were excited to leave the temple and get married. But no Mary, she had made a lifetime commitment to God. This presented a real problem for the Priests in the church, or Rabbi or whatever they called them. They picked out potential husbands and they put their staff on the alter. Joseph was the staff that budded. A perfect solution because then Mary could remain a perpetual virgin.

While the infancy gospels contain stories about the birth and childhood of Jesus and Mary, they are not considered to meet the criteria for inclusion in the official biblical canon. The Church's decision to exclude these texts from the canon is based on factors such as their late composition, lack of apostolic authorship, and the presence of legendary or imaginative elements.

Click to expand...

Usually I don’t bump old post, but I have to correct this. The same book said in chapter 12 she was 16. I wish people would read the whole book before jumping in conclusions. I don’t mean in one day, but seriously it grinds my gear when people use to say she was 12 but ignored what chapter 12. Chapter 12 Infancy Gospel of James — Gospels.net!

Notthistsleagain said:

Usually I don’t bump old post, but I have to correct this. The same book said in chapter 12 she was 16. I wish people would read the whole book before jumping in conclusions. I don’t mean in one day, but seriously it grinds my gear when people use to say she was 12 but ignored what chapter 12. Chapter 12 Infancy Gospel of James — Gospels.net!

Click to expand...

Well, this also takes into account whether or not one takes any authoritative weight from apocryphal writings. (Personally I don't.) And besides this; I personally find the concept disgusting; (knowing what I know about child development) to think God is going to saddle a 12 year old girl with an infant. That's just a gross perversion of God's character. As today even; most of us would never assume that a 12 year old is mature enough to be fully responsible for an infant; none to say give birth to one! The idea of Mary being 12 when Jesus is born; to me at least, is akin to "child sex trafficking". It's just disgusting!

As practiced custom I would say Mary was young. Maybe around 16 years when she was pregnant. As it seems the whole thing happened pretty quick with Caesar Augustus and the census and having to return to Bethlehem to be enrolled. Mary got pregnant, she met Joseph and the next thing pregnant Mary is on a donkey to Bethlehem.

Joseph would have been a lot older, maybe 35. But really I think that can be young in those times. At least not some old bloke which can happen.

But what I find most interesting when I seen this topic. Its been on my mind for some reason. Maybe because we are more or less 2,000 years exactly to a lot of these events around Christ.

But depending on when you think Christ was born. Some say the year 0 or 1AD. But theres a consensus for around 4BC. If thats the case then we would be coming into the start of 2000 years since Christ began His 3 year ministry. That would mean in 2027 or maybe 2026 Christ will be starting.

John the Baptist will be calling from the wilderness just about now 2000 years ago lol. Christ would have been at home preparing. But its getting close to His 2000 year anniversary of His ministry and eventual crucifixtion. I wonder if this has any significance.

stevevw said:

As practiced custom I would say Mary was young. Maybe around 16 years when she was pregnant. As it seems the whole thing happened pretty quick with Caesar Augustus and the census and having to return to Bethlehem to be enrolled. Mary got pregnant, she met Joseph and the next thing pregnant Mary is on a donkey to Bethlehem.

Joseph would have been a lot older, maybe 35. But really I think that can be young in those times. At least not some old bloke which can happen.

But what I find most interesting when I seen this topic. Its been on my mind for some reason. Maybe because we are more or less 2,000 years exactly to a lot of these events around Christ.

But depending on when you think Christ was born. Some say the year 0 or 1AD. But theres a consensus for around 4BC. If thats the case then we would be coming into the start of 2000 years since Christ began His 3 year ministry. That would mean in 2027 or maybe 2026 Christ will be starting.

John the Baptist will be calling from the wilderness just about now 2000 years ago lol. Christ would have been at home preparing. But its getting close to His 2000 year anniversary of His ministry and eventual crucifixtion. I wonder if this has any significance.

Click to expand...

The bible doesn't tell us how old Mary was, nor does it tell us that she rode a donkey to Bethlehem. It also doesn't tell us that Joseph was much older than Mary. We have songs that tell us these things, for example, "Little Donkey" and "The Cherry Tree Carol" which begins: "Joseph was an old man, an old man was he." But such songs are unbiblical.

David Lamb said:

The bible doesn't tell us how old Mary was, nor does it tell us that she rode a donkey to Bethlehem.

Click to expand...

No don't say that. Your spoiling the image I have in my head of poor Mary, or rather brave Mary riding a donkey in the cold desert night air with the stars shining above. Now I have to reimagine it. No I'm keeping my image lol. Thats how I picture it.

David Lamb said:

It also doesn't tell us that Joseph was much older than Mary. We have songs that tell us these things, for example, "Little Donkey" and "The Cherry Tree Carol" which begins: "Joseph was an old man, an old man was he." But such songs are unbiblical.

Click to expand...

Yeah they are filling in the picture and each culture will have their own version. THough they are pretty close. They all say he's older but some like to elaborate he was much older as the percieved custom could potentially have an old man marry a very young women in those times.

Some religions in ancient times had girls of 8 and 9 bestowed and married at 9 or 10. But the husband had to wait to the coming of age. Still a scarry proposition to allow such an opportunity in the wrong hands. But that was the custom and practice in some parts of the world. Which was really an extreme version of how generally it was the norm for older men to marry females at 14, 15 and often 16 years.

I think it was around the 50s that some western nations had marriage laws below 16 years. I know Gerry Lee Lewis got in trouble for marrying a girl at 14.

David Lamb said:

The bible doesn't tell us how old Mary was, nor does it tell us that she rode a donkey to Bethlehem. It also doesn't tell us that Joseph was much older than Mary. We have songs that tell us these things, for example, "Little Donkey" and "The Cherry Tree Carol" which begins: "Joseph was an old man, an old man was he." But such songs are unbiblical.

Click to expand...

Information/facts that are not mentioned in the Bible may not be necessarily untrue. The early church has circulating info and sometimes literature/books with extra-Biblical stories - of course the reliability and authenticity of those are at a very different level than the Biblical texts (and may even be completely fabricated), but there is no reason to dismiss by definition ALL extra-Biblical accounts/stories/books. These were part of early Christian society and its written or oral tradition. We assume all kind of historical events based on extra-Biblical information ..

Reluctant Theologian said:

Information/facts that are not mentioned in the Bible may not be necessarily untrue. The early church has circulating info and sometimes literature/books with extra-Biblical stories - of course the reliability and authenticity of those are at a very different level than the Biblical texts (and may even be completely fabricated), but there is no reason to dismiss by definition ALL extra-Biblical accounts/stories/books. These were part of early Christian society and its written or oral tradition. We assume all kind of historical events based on extra-Biblical information ..

Click to expand...

I would say that there is no reason either to dismiss or to believe extra-biblical details about people or events mentioned in the bible. Particularly with the biblical account of the Incarnation, we find all sorts of "details" added, and accepted as an essential part of the "Christmas story." The donkey, an innkeeper, the wise men visiting Jesus at the same time as the shepherds, and much more. Some of these things actually contradict what we find in the bible, and others, we just do not know.

David Lamb said:

I would say that there is no reason either to dismiss or to believe extra-biblical details about people or events mentioned in the bible. Particularly with the biblical account of the Incarnation, we find all sorts of "details" added, and accepted as an essential part of the "Christmas story." The donkey, an innkeeper, the wise men visiting Jesus at the same time as the shepherds, and much more. Some of these things actually contradict what we find in the bible, and others, we just do not know.

Click to expand...

Protestants (including me) usually are very, very reluctant to take into account anything extra-Biblical from the Apostolic or post-Apostolic era when it comes to the Bible or the early church history, but this position is inconsistent. Protestants assume Julius Caesar, Napoleon, St. Augustine existed - they usually attribute some degree of credibility to the various accounts about their lives - but somehow when it comes to the Apostolic and early church era all of a sudden all historical record in its entirety is disregarded because it's not the Bible E.g. what we know about Pontius Pilate comes from Josephus and Tacitus .. there is no reason to disregard that.

I would suggest to read e.g. 'History of the Church' by Eusebius (4th century) - the author was present at the famous Council of Nicea; and writes about all kind of fascinating details. We have to treat the history of the Apostolic early church era like any other historical period. Evaluate the sources using the common historian methods - and try to derive history from that with varying degrees of certainty.

The Apostles shared their accounts with others, what happened got passed on, etc. All that may not be canonised certainty but it's still very valuable.

We need historical realism for the early church era in the same way we apply it to any other historical period. It's a typical post-Reformation reflex to dismiss any extra Biblical record, but the Apostles and the early church left a historical trail of oral or written accounts. We need discernment in properly dealing with that. But the trail and the history it reflects on is real. Also we may overlook the early church fathers had access to information/libraries we now don't have anymore (e.g. Jerome mentions he personally had seen the Hebrew original version of the gospel of Matthew)

The very early church fathers who defined the Creeds didn't live in a vacuum - they lived in that trail. It's intriguing to notice that orthodox Protestant churches will vigorously defend the Creeds and Sola Scripture at the same time ... but also rejecting the worldview and many aspects of the faith of the authors of these Creeds. Many modern Protestants would deem the authors of the Creeds to be Catholic heretics, but yet somehow magically believe the resulting Creeds are infallible hallmarks of the proper faith.

We need realism, discernment and modesty - and a weighed valuation of the historical church trail.

To come back to the original subject; the Protoevangelium of James (2nd century AD) contains elements on Mary & Joseph that are referenced and valued by various church fathers. I consider it valuable background information - it's not canon, not infallible, but it may contain elements of that historical trail. Btw I don't believe in Mary's perpetual virginity as it would be very inconsistent with Jewish marriage, but the account may have truthful bits.

Be blessed brother!