Mark: True Family of Jesus

[Gorgias]

Hi Thanks for this! I am going to get around to answering. In the meantime, not that I don’t trust your exegesis, but to satisfy my own need for curiosity, I wonder if there is a Greek Translation online that is trustworthy, or better still, Hebrew?!

Hebrew isn’t relevant in this context – Mark was written in Greek. (There’s an outstanding question of whether Matthew was originally written in Greek or Aramaic, but not Mark.)

However, there are a number of websites that have the GNT (some of which provide a variety of manuscript texts). Newadvent.org and interlinear.biblos.com are two examples that come to mind, but there are many out there.

The four translations you’ve given from the Knox etc…could still mean those in close proximity.

That’s the whole point.

The Greek only says “those near him.” You asked for examples of translations that don’t say ‘family’, and I provided them. “In close proximity” doesn’t mean ‘relative’ or ‘family’, as I mentioned a few posts ago. In fact, the only reason it might be considered as such is if we accept the ‘Markan sandwich’ assertion and decide that “those near him” refer to the same people as “his mother and brothers” later in the chapter.

All sources point to Luke removing the divison between His actual family and His chosen. It would appear, quite purposefully.

Hmm… now I’m confused. Are you now asserting that Luke wanted to change the meaning that Mark had written in his Gospel?

My issue with Mark’s triplet is the first account being tied with the third, in the sense that Our Lady was mistrusting, because this would make Our Lady something other than a perfect disciple.

I disagree that this is the implication. Remember, all that Mark is saying is that Jesus is preaching so much that he didn’t even have time to eat… and that “those near him” were concerned. That’s not sinful or mistrusting – just a mom and family who wanted to make sure that Jesus took care of his health.

Regardless, what you’re saying here is that ‘sandwich’ doesn’t work for you. I’m ok with that. However, it seems that you have only two choices: either the ‘sandwich’ is an accurate understanding, and therefore, ‘those near him’ and ‘his mother and brothers’ are the same; or, the ‘sandwich’ isn’t accurate, and the first reference is only ‘those near him’ (not ‘relatives’ and not ‘those distant from him’, as you asserted). There doesn’t seem to be another alternative…

The middle account summary is very much condemning those who not only worry for Him, but who thought He was possessed with demons.

No, the middle account is only condemnatory of “the scribes who had arrived from Jerusalem.”

It doesn’t have to [include his immediate family], to make sense, and it doesn’t do away with Mark’s triplet, to think otherwise.

How so? ‘Relatives’ doesn’t make sense as a translation unless we link ‘those near him’ with ‘his mother and brothers’.

Maybe Mark left it ambiguous to test the faith of readers

This only is reasonable if we see other instances in which Mark ‘utilizes ambiguity to test the faith of readers’. Can you point out other instances in which this takes place – or, more to the point, can you demonstrate that Early Church Fathers or other theologians have made this case about Mark’s Gospel?

Will eventually respond to your paragraphs in turn…

Sounds good! Thanks!

 

[friardchips]

We must keep in mind the entirety of the Gospel according to Mark.

another passage that is typically leveled against the perpetual viringity of mary is

Mark 6:3 3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him.

obviously if Jesus has brothers Mary must have had more children after Jesus. NO!!!

When you compare this passage to another passage in Mark. Which would be Mark 15:40

**40 There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome.

Please note this isn’t Mary the Mother of Jesus this is likely a relative of Mary and the wife of Clopas (C.F. John 19:25) So this would explain who are Jesus “brothers” it is likely these are relatives. **Now I’m not expert in language and I can’t tell you what the greek says, but I think based on this connection we can tell that in Mark 3 is not talking about his actual brothers but rather relatives.

This would seem a reasonable explanation. This then points to the third account in the triplet more about a general inclusive welcome to ‘outsiders’ than about unattaching his own family from the bond of love. Hence, the ambiguity. I agree that we can’t look at the Gospels through too narrow a prism which would be to take the gospels as separate identities. Though they may convey from one to another a different angle or outreach. But the Whole Truth surely should be a connecting line throughout.

 

[Gorgias]

This would seem a reasonable explanation. This then points to the third account in the triplet more about a general inclusive welcome to ‘outsiders’ than about unattaching his own family from the bond of love.

Umm… no, that doesn’t seem right. That might explain ‘brothers’ in Mark 3:31, but not ‘mother’ there…

 

[catholictiger]

Umm… no, that doesn’t seem right. That might explain ‘brothers’ in Mark 3:31, but not ‘mother’ there…

Jesus in Mark 3 is making an important point, our spiritual family is important if not more important than our biological family. We are son’s of God we are in the family of God and of the Church. While yes our biological family is very important and we should do everything to assist them and love them, but I think Jesus is trying to emphasis the spiritual aspect of our lives. We are all members of the family of heaven so to speak. Nothing wrong with Jesus “lowering” the importance of his mother.

 

[steve53]

Yes, but Jesus’ mother was the Virgin Mary.

And Jesus of all people should have recognized that and not dismissed her.

A tough passage for the Apologists to defend, for sure.

A historical approach solves the issue.

Jesus knew what his mother and brothers wanted. They had come to plead with him to stop his ministry and come home- or at least not make the planned trip to Jerusalem to the feast of the Dedication. They themselves might have felt threatened by the Temple Jews for what Jesus was doing- and the executed John the Baptist was Mary’s nephew after all.

Remember, it was in Mark where Jesus killed the fig tree- some rough edges there!

 

[Gorgias]

A historical approach solves the issue.

Jesus knew what his mother and brothers wanted. They had come to plead with him to stop his ministry and come home- or at least not make the planned trip to Jerusalem to the feast of the Dedication.

You keep making this assertion. Where, in Mark, do we see Jesus with respect to the feast of the Dedication in the vicinity of Mark 3? We see Him going in Galilee here in Mark 3, then sailing across the Sea of Galilee, to the Decapolis, back across the sea, to Nazareth, through Galilee, to Capernaum, back across the Sea of Galilee, to Gennesaret, to Tyre and Sidon, then back to Galilee via the Decapolis, across the Sea again, to Bethsaida, to Caesarea Philippi, to Galilee. Finally, He heads to Jerusalem – but not for the Feast of the Dedication. Rather, if we want to use the Hanukkah visit found in John 10, we must realize that first, following His departure from Galilee, He goes to Jerusalem for Tabernacles.

Now, you can claim, if you want, that His recognition of Judean danger (in John 7) is what his mother and brothers were warning against. However, in order to do so, you’d have to explain all the material from Mark 3 through Mark 9 – why does so much ministry take place, if His family already fears for Him and wants to avoid His visit for Hanukkah? Worse yet, in the context of ‘Judean danger’, Jesus’ ‘brothers’ aren’t trying to prevent Him from going to Jerusalem – they’re trying to encourage Him to do so! Sorry… your harmonization doesn’t make sense… and therefore, your assertions fail to convince.

 

[steve53]

You keep making this assertion. Where, in Mark, do we see Jesus with respect to the feast of the Dedication in the vicinity of Mark 3? We see Him going in Galilee here in Mark 3, then sailing across the Sea of Galilee, to the Decapolis, back across the sea, to Nazareth, through Galilee, to Capernaum, back across the Sea of Galilee, to Gennesaret, to Tyre and Sidon, then back to Galilee via the Decapolis, across the Sea again, to Bethsaida, to Caesarea Philippi, to Galilee. Finally, He heads to Jerusalem – but not for the Feast of the Dedication. Rather, if we want to use the Hanukkah visit found in John 10, we must realize that first, following His departure from Galilee, He goes to Jerusalem for Tabernacles.

Now, you can claim, if you want, that His recognition of Judean danger (in John 7) is what his mother and brothers were warning against. However, in order to do so, you’d have to explain all the material from Mark 3 through Mark 9 – why does so much ministry take place, if His family already fears for Him and wants to avoid His visit for Hanukkah? Worse yet, in the context of ‘Judean danger’, Jesus’ ‘brothers’ aren’t trying to prevent Him from going to Jerusalem – they’re trying to encourage Him to do so! Sorry… your harmonization doesn’t make sense… and therefore, your assertions fail to convince.

Well, if you look at the Gospel of John, Jesus is in Judea (Bethany) for the Feast of the Dedication (December) preceding the Passover of his Crucifixion (April) and stayed in that area without returning to the Galilee.

Using those two Gospels, and Josephus, a very reasonable timeline can be derived with a late crucifixion date of A.D. 36.

The Gospel of John is the key.

John covers three Passovers- presumably the last three in Jesus’ ministry (maybe a fourth). According to the timeline, Jesus could have retreated back to the Galilee from the Judea/Perea area after the arrest of John the Baptist by Herod Antipas in late A.D. 34, but more probably he retreated after JB was executed in early A.D. 35. The Gospel of John has Jesus celebrating his second-to-last Passover in the hills of the eastern Galilee.

So for most of the year in A.D. 35, including the summer, Jesus was traveling around the Galilee and environs. Plenty of time to do all the traveling Mark documents. Herod Antipas’ army was then destroyed in late A.D. 35- a seminal event.

Remember that at the same time for most of A.D. 35 there was trouble brewing in the north involving Rome, Parthia, and Armenia. Combined with Herod Antipas’ war on Nabotea in the south, rumors were riff and end-time scenarios were probably very popular. When Herod’s army was defeated, most Jews took it to be a sign that God was displeased with Herod- who had the full support of not only Rome but the High Priesthood (despite his marriage to Herodias).

Admittedly, we have to look at Jesus’ mother in a slightly less divine light in this scenario, as she tried to get her son to stay in the Galilee and avoid going to Judea. The Passover was the big Jewish celebration for all Jews, and that was when political trouble usually started- if there was tinder for one. She sensed trouble, and she was right.

His brothers, who accompanied Mary, did not necessarily have to be in agreement with Mary. Mary was probably adamant about making a last-ditch effort to stop her son, and she might have declared that she was going to Scythopolis to see Jesus with or without them- so they went with her with some resignation.

Jesus probably saw his family later after his ministry session, but he knew what they wanted and so did not feel the need to immediately suspend his lessons and greet them.

All speculation, of course, but consistent with the best sources sources we have on the times and events.

 

[Gorgias]

Well, if you look at the Gospel of John, Jesus is in Judea (Bethany) for the Feast of the Dedication (December) preceding the Passover of his Crucifixion (April) and stayed in that area without returning to the Galilee.

The Gospel of John is the key.

Aah… so, it’s not based on Mark at all, is it? I mean, other than an attempt to shoehorn Mark into the last year of John’s timeline. Yet, that’s the context of this discussion.

So for most of the year in A.D. 35, including the summer, Jesus was traveling around the Galilee and environs. Plenty of time to do all the traveling Mark documents.

So… you’re asserting that Mark records the baptism of Jesus and then skips two years. Yes, you’re right… lots of speculation here!

I think it’s more reasonable to tie together the two Gospels in such a way that Mark 3 lines up with Jesus’ earlier ministry. Any harmonization of the Gospels is going to risk the creation of shaky results; but, if we use all four Gospels, cross-referencing them one to another, it’s more reasonable to suggest that Mark 3 happens early in Christ’s ministry…

His brothers, who accompanied Mary, did not necessarily have to be in agreement with Mary.

Yet, for your story to make sense, we have to believe both that Jesus’ brothers were trying to get Him to stop ministering (Mark) and were encouraging Jesus to go to Jerusalem (John).

Admittedly, we have to look at Jesus’ mother in a slightly less divine light in this scenario, as she tried to get her son to stay in the Galilee and avoid going to Judea.
… Mary was probably adamant about making a last-ditch effort to stop her son, and she might have declared that she was going to Scythopolis to see Jesus with or without them- so they went with her with some resignation.

Where’s that part about reliable sources and reasonable conclusions, again?

All speculation, of course, but consistent with the best sources sources we have on the times and events.

… and horribly inconsistent with what the Bible records about Mary.

… and, it would seem, inconsistent with the actions of Jesus’ brothers, as recorded in Mark and John. (The best answer, it seems, that you have to this objection, is that the brothers travelled with Mary but disagreed with her. That’s a pretty weak assertion, don’t you think? It smacks of an attempt to desperately hold to a desired conclusion, in the face of facts that argue against the assertion…)

 

[steve53]

Bits of early Mark could have come from early in Jesus’ ministry- which lasted probably for 6-7 years in total.

How many brothers did Jesus have?

We don’t know.

It could have been many, all with different opinions. The ones who chose to travel with Mary didn’t have to agree with her concerning Jesus.

And if we give Jesus an age of 46-47 at this time (very reasonable), Mary would have been in her sixties and certainly have not traveled alone- or even in a group with only one or two others. Plus, they were going into the Decapolis, which was Greek-controlled for the most part. So there was an added concern about safety.

Of course, I (based Hagan’s work) am looking at things from a humanistic viewpoint- but the conclusions that can be drawn are supported by the best sources combined with what we know of human nature.

Now, if you assume that Mary was NOT human but divine, well, then, there you go.

But Mark is filled with historical references and human beings doing very human things. It is only natural to come to humanistic conclusions.

And it was discussed in another thread that the last few verses in Mark where the resurrected Jesus is seen and does miracles is not in the oldest copies of Mark that are available.

 

[Abu]

Real Catholics know the reality:
Did Jesus have Brothers?
Question from Walter G. Lee on 08-01-2002:
Answer by Fr. John Echert on 08-03-2002 (EWTN):
Extract:
“The tendency of certain Easter Fathers was to suggest that St. Joseph was a widower who had children by a previous marriage. Regardless,** we know by the certitude of tradition that these cannot have been siblings of our Lord**. And, in fact, there is evidence in the NT itself which would suggest that they were not siblings. For one thing, two of the “brothers” mentioned in this text (James and Joset) are later described as sons of a Mary other than the Blessed Mother, and that they were cousins. Secondly, it would be inconceivable that our Lord would give His Mother into the care of the apostle John, if he had so many brothers and sisters as siblings, who would assume such a responsibility.** So both the external witnesses and the Scriptures themselves support our belief in this matter**.” [My emphases].
tinyurl.com/q85blup

 

[friardchips]

Well, if you look at the Gospel of John, Jesus is in Judea (Bethany) for the Feast of the Dedication (December) preceding the Passover of his Crucifixion (April) and stayed in that area without returning to the Galilee.

Using those two Gospels, and Josephus, a very reasonable timeline can be derived with a late crucifixion date of A.D. 36.

The Gospel of John is the key.

John covers three Passovers- presumably the last three in Jesus’ ministry (maybe a fourth). According to the timeline, Jesus could have retreated back to the Galilee from the Judea/Perea area after the arrest of John the Baptist by Herod Antipas in late A.D. 34, but more probably he retreated after JB was executed in early A.D. 35. The Gospel of John has Jesus celebrating his second-to-last Passover in the hills of the eastern Galilee.

So for most of the year in A.D. 35, including the summer, Jesus was traveling around the Galilee and environs. Plenty of time to do all the traveling Mark documents. Herod Antipas’ army was then destroyed in late A.D. 35- a seminal event.

Remember that at the same time for most of A.D. 35 there was trouble brewing in the north involving Rome, Parthia, and Armenia. Combined with Herod Antipas’ war on Nabotea in the south, rumors were riff and end-time scenarios were probably very popular. When Herod’s army was defeated, most Jews took it to be a sign that God was displeased with Herod- who had the full support of not only Rome but the High Priesthood (despite his marriage to Herodias).

Admittedly, we have to look at Jesus’ mother in a slightly less divine light in this scenario, as she tried to get her son to stay in the Galilee and avoid going to Judea. The Passover was the big Jewish celebration for all Jews, and that was when political trouble usually started- if there was tinder for one. She sensed trouble, and she was right.

His brothers, who accompanied Mary, did not necessarily have to be in agreement with Mary. Mary was probably adamant about making a last-ditch effort to stop her son, and she might have declared that she was going to Scythopolis to see Jesus with or without them- so they went with her with some resignation.

Jesus probably saw his family later after his ministry session, but he knew what they wanted and so did not feel the need to immediately suspend his lessons and greet them.

All speculation, of course, but consistent with the best sources sources we have on the times and events.

All of this is mere spec.

By the same token we could argue that it was the brothers who wanted to stop our Lord and Mary wanted to stop them from stopping Him.

Or we could assume Mary wanted to go and help her Son and the brothers would not let her travel alone so went with her. Quite plausible actually.

Or one could assume that Our Lady and the brothers went together to help Him out in mutual agreement.

etc…

Btw…no Catholic has ever said Mary was “divine”. That is a strawman protestant argument that probably not even protestants use today! It was blown down a long time ago no doubt through evangelisation and thorough exegesis - mariology, amongst other things.

 

[Gorgias]

Steve,

How do you come up with some of the assertions you’re making here? You’re saying things that don’t hold up to the things that I’d have asserted are well-known and agreed upon. Namely:

Bits of early Mark could have come from early in Jesus’ ministry- which lasted probably for 6-7 years in total.

John seems to argue for a three-year ministry. Where do you get 6-7 years?

And if we give Jesus an age of 46-47 at this time (very reasonable)

It’s commonly held that Jesus would have been in his early 30s. How do you arrive at the late-40s age?

And if we give Jesus an age of 46-47 at this time (very reasonable), Mary would have been in her sixties

If we hold to Mary as being 14 at Jesus’ birth, then Mary would have been, at most, 60, and not “in her sixties”, which seems to be implying a much older Mary.

and [Mary] certainly [would] have not traveled alone- or even in a group with only one or two others. Plus, they were going into the Decapolis, which was Greek-controlled for the most part. So there was an added concern about safety.

Mark 3 happens in the context of Jesus having returned ‘home’ (see Mk 3:20). How do you place the events of Mark 3 in the Decapolis, or even requiring travel for Jesus’ family?

Now, if you assume that Mary was NOT human but divine, well, then, there you go.

How does a Mary who does the will of God imply a ‘divine’ Mary? That doesn’t stand to reason.

 

[friardchips]

It’s commonly held that Jesus would have been in his early 30s. How do you arrive at the late-40s age?

This is the first time I have read such a theory too.

 

[Abu]

**Does Jesus really have blood brothers and sisters?
Answer by Fr. John Echert on 12-12-2012 (EWTN}: **
The Hebrew language used the same root words to refer to siblings, step siblings, and relatives. Probably a better way to translate references to these relations of our Lord would be “kinfolk” or something equivalent. True, the New Testament was written in Greek but it still reflects the semitic background. We know with certitude from Church tradition that Mary was ever Virgin and therefore this precludes siblings of Jesus. Furthermore, if there were brothers, then why would our Lord entrust his mother to an Apostle, as he was dying on the Cross, rather than a sibling? [My emphasis].
tinyurl.com/om7djqf

 

[friardchips]

**Does Jesus really have blood brothers and sisters?
Answer by Fr. John Echert on 12-12-2012 (EWTN}: **
The Hebrew language used the same root words to refer to siblings, step siblings, and relatives. Probably a better way to translate references to these relations of our Lord would be “kinfolk” or something equivalent. True, the New Testament was written in Greek but it still reflects the semitic background. We know with certitude from Church tradition that Mary was ever Virgin and therefore this precludes siblings of Jesus. Furthermore, if there were brothers, then why would our Lord entrust his mother to an Apostle, as he was dying on the Cross, rather than a sibling? [My emphasis].
tinyurl.com/om7djqf

Both valid posts…

I was thinking this explanation would explain how the first account of the triplet could be about other relatives not including our Holy Mother. It would make more sense if so. This has been countered in a previous post by another poster so looking now…

 

[friardchips]

Hi Gorgias! Sorry for long wait. Going back to your first couple of responses to my posts in this thread as it get s very confusing. I have some resources with me. Will have a look at the Greek too, to read up on your exegesis. From what I’ve read so far, there are two possible scenarios for the ‘True Family…’ account in Mark - that it is left ambiguous, possibly intentionally, or, that His natural family is purposefully separated from those who do His Father’s Will. And also there is the question over the translation in the first of the three stories. So…

Mark 3: 20-21 -

Translation of ‘relatives’ (Abu has provided references to look at in regard to this as have you).

Allegations of Scribes 3:22-30 -

Being clear about who our Lord is reprimanding here (I think this is the key to the triplet,
which is why I have mentioned it).

The True Family of Jesus 31-35

Is there a differentiation between our Lord’s natural family and His spiritual family, and if so, why? Comparisons with other texts are important as is also a comparison with Luke, to answer the ambiguity - if it is left ambiguous.

 

[friardchips]

In a book, ‘The Writings of the NT - an interpretation’, (a resource for theologial studies) the author writes of Mark’s ambiguous message in the triplet: 'By itself…(the last of the triplet)…this…story would be a straightforward if negative account about…rejection of the…(natural) family…’. He goes on to write:…‘Notice, however, that Mark inserts…(in the middle) a controversy between Jesus and the Scribes…They accuse Him of casting out demons by demonic power. He responds…about a house divided…pronounces on the sin against the Holy Spirit.’

What is telling in this book is what follows: 'Given the connections between madness and unclean spirits in the ancient…world, and…the pattern if rejection found in both frame and middle - those…who reject…are rejected - the composite appears as a powerful indictment. But of whom? The reader is left to wonder.’

Because Mark does seem to present challenges, throughout, I am going to start with the above premise that is: this triplet is ambiguous. This leaves the most room for theorising. Alternatively, if we start by saying, “it is this or that”, then we don’t open ourselves up to discourse and instead can find ourselves simply trying to galvanise our own preformed opinions…

 

[friardchips]

Gorgias:

What the Greek text actually says here is οἱ παρ’ αὐτοῦ – that is, “those near him.” There’s no mention of family at all here! (We see the exact same construction in the Septuagint, in the story of Susanna in Daniel 13. In Dan 13:33, οἱ παρ’ αὐτοῦ is translated “her companions” (NAB).)

Why, then, does the NAB translate this phrase as ‘relatives’?..

Scholars note that one of Mark’s techniques was to interrupt a narrative with a story that seemed unrelated – that is, to create a ‘sandwich’ of narration/interruption/renewed narration…: Mark talks about “those near him”, and then moves on to the discussion about Beelzebul, and then returns to his context – that is, the visit by His family. So, it seems that we have two alternatives: either we take the phrase at face value, and simply say that Jesus’ peeps are trying to give Him a break so He can eat; or, we say that ‘relatives’ makes sense only because Mark has interrupted his story and “those near him” are precisely those mentioned in v31 – his “mother and brothers” who come to Him.

In other words, your assertion about ‘relatives’ being those not near Him cannot stand up to scrutiny: either they’re the same folks Mark mentions in verse 31, or they’re simply ‘companions’ who want Jesus to take a lunch break.

To analyse.

 

[friardchips]

Gorgias:

What the Greek text actually says here is οἱ παρ’ αὐτοῦ – that is, “those near him.” There’s no mention of family at all here! (We see the exact same construction in the Septuagint, in the story of Susanna in Daniel 13. In Dan 13:33, οἱ παρ’ αὐτοῦ is translated “her companions” (NAB).)

Now in my trusted but I think dubious Bible commentary’ it is stated that “those near him” is a Greek phrase *‘hoi par’ autou’ *…‘apparently’ to describe the relatives of J…(RSV, “his family”; NJB, “His relations”).’

Biblehub(biblehub.com/text/mark/3-21.htm) - Greek:

*‘hoi - οἱ - those
par’ - παρ’ - belonging to
autou - αὐτοῦ - him’ *

‘Belonging to Him’ and ‘those near Him’ are still fairly loose terms.

Unless there is mention of ‘mother’ then I can see no reason why it assumed that Mary is even there?!

‘καὶ ἀκούσαντες, οἱ παρ’ αὐτοῦ ἐξῆλθον κρατῆσαι αὐτόν; ἔλεγον’

‘And having heard (of it) those belonging to him went out to…’

is hoi…autou, so par’ is belonging to

As you said, Gorgias, this translation does not say ‘family’ and means rather ‘friends’. I’d say this is very broad indeed. And there is much room for a better theory than to assume any direct involvement.

My Bible commentary (used for exegesis) I have with me, does, somewhat speculatively, try and make an assertion, without any real backing up, that this is meant to mean ‘family’; however, it gives an alternative explanation, which I think is far more feasible in light of the triplet as a whole:

"Some commentators take “they said”…(“they said he was out of his mind/out of control”) in an impersonal sense “people say,” making the family…(though the commentary hasn’t really backed up why) into reporters of a popular opinion about Jesus.’

This ties in with what I said about Jesus’ Mother going to find Him…

1. Because maybe she was worried about what they - the people - were saying, according to the ‘friends’ and went to find Him to tell Him.
2. Because she wanted to help Him after hearing what the crowd were saying and wanted to aid Him. .

This seems more plausible a theory because, as I said before, the word ‘mother’ is not used in the first text of the triplet but she is mentioned in the last. There has to be continuity for this to make sense.

Also, this can mean that Jesus never even spoke or made contact with Mary in the first text of the triplet. Mary, if she was there, may have heard reported that this is what the crowds were saying.

This might also make sense why St. Luke saw fit to remove any distinction…

 

[Gorgias]

Hi Gorgias! Sorry for long wait.

No problems. This isn’t our “day job”, for either of us!

Mark 3: 20-21 -

Translation of ‘relatives’ (Abu has provided references to look at in regard to this as have you).

Well, actually, no. Abu provided explanations of the ‘brothers of the Lord’ meme, which in this context, shows up in the later context.

Allegations of Scribes 3:22-30 -

Being clear about who our Lord is reprimanding here (I think this is the key to the triplet,
which is why I have mentioned it).

Is there any question whom Jesus is addressing here?

One way of describing this is “Jesus is correcting people who mis-characterize who He is.”

The True Family of Jesus 31-35

Is there a differentiation between our Lord’s natural family and His spiritual family, and if so, why? Comparisons with other texts are important as is also a comparison with Luke, to answer the ambiguity - if it is left ambiguous.

You keep going back to Luke… why do you think that we need to look at Luke’s account in order to understand Mark’s narrative in this context?