Mark 6:3 Isn’t this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James, Joses, Judas, and Simon? And aren’t his sisters here with us?” And so they took offense at him.

The reference to Jesus as ‘Mary’s son’ is unusual, and invites attention.

A son would usually be identified in connection with his father, not his mother (although see Judg 11:1–2; 1 Kgs 17:17; Lk 7:12; Acts 16:1; 23:16; Gal 4:21–31).  This would be the case even if the father were dead, as may be the case with Jesus, given the silence of the Gospels after the birth narratives in that regard.

1. Death of Joseph

Brown (The Birth of the Messiah) thinks that the identification of Jesus as ‘the son of Mary’ is best explained in terms of Joseph’s death.  Citing McArthur, Brown explains:

‘This is not a revival of the thesis that the son of a widow was identified by his mother’s name; for an official record would still have identified him as “Jesus, the son of Joseph.” The identification here as “the son of Mary” would be purely contextual, rather than normal, official, or genealogical.’

Brown points to Lk 7:12, where the context makes it quite reasonable for a deceased son to be linked to his mother, who was a widow.

On this point, however,

‘the absence of Joseph’s name in v. 3 may indicate that Joseph had died, although this is not as certain as many commentators suppose, for John 6:42 assumes that he is still alive.’ (Edwards)

According to Instone-Brewer, ‘there are no other instances in ancient Jewish literature of a Jew who was named, like Jesus, after his mother.’  Cf. Mt 13:55, which has ‘Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary?’, and Lk 4:22, ‘Is not this the son of Joseph?’.

Instone-Brewer’s comments needs to be compared with those of Lincoln, who (relying on the seminal work of Ilan) says that it iwas unusual, but not unheard-of, for men to be identified as sons of their mothers.  This would happen in cases where the mother was considered more important than the father.  But it is difficult to apply this explanation to the present verse, for there is no reason to think that, in the crowd’s estimation, Mary was more important that Joseph, and, in any case, the crowd’s motive is clearly to cast aspersions on Jesus and his family.

2. Former marriage?

Edwards cites Bauckham, who thinks that this phrase suggests ‘may have been intended to distinguish Jesus from the children of Joseph by a former marriage.’  But, writes Edwards, this is not supported by the context, which shows that the crowd’s comments were intended to discredit Jesus; whereas ‘the meaning Bauckham suggests would scarcely have been a reason to “take offense at him.”’

The suggestion that Mary is named because Joseph had more than one wife has some OT precedent (David had so many children that they are identified by their mothers (1 Chron 3:2), but is speculative in the present case.  On this point, Lincoln adds:

‘If Jesus were being distinguished from his brothers and sisters in Mark 6 on the basis of different mothers, then one would have expected his siblings’ mother also to have been named.’

3. Lowly profession?

For Lincoln (Born of a Virgin?) the scandal may have more to do with the lowliness of Jesus’ profession:

‘Jesus’ status as carpenter is seen by the crowd as incompatible with the claim to impart wisdom and the study that was necessary for such a role, so from early on opponents attempted to use the lowly status of a carpenter or artisan to undermine claims about Jesus being the Messiah or having divine associations.’

4. Hint of illegitimacy?

Cranfield and others find here a hint that there was believed to be something scandalous about Jesus’ birth.  Here he is, preaching in his home town of Nazareth.  Everyone would have known that his birth had occurred less than nine months after his parents’ marriage, and his mother would probably have had a visible bump on their wedding day.  Joseph had denied being Jesus’ father, and Joseph’s name is left out of the tirade recorded in the present verse.  If Joseph had died, it would have been even more important to mention him, because as eldest son should have carried forward his name for posterity.  Conclusion: here is this man spouting all this ‘fine ‘wisdom’, and no-one even know who his father is!  A charge of illegitimacy is not far away, although this very charge is (for Cranfield) evidence of the virgin birth.

Lincoln regards

‘the interpretation of ‘the son of Mary’ as a scurrilous remark about the legitimacy of Jesus’ birth that may reflect popular rumour’

as a possibility, but only a possibility.

Of course, Matthew and Luke tackle the question of Jesus’ birth head-on, and explain it in terms of the virginal conception.  Like Mark, John records some of the heckling that took place on account of Jesus’ supposed illegitimacy (Jn 8:18-41).  (See Instone-Brewer, The Jesus Scandals, pp1-5)