Mark: True Family of Jesus

[friardchips]

The reference below is on Wiki…not my usual first port of call. The reason why I have picked it is because this passage is often misinterpreted even by so-called scholars as it has here been here in this person’s misinterpretation:

‘There is also an incident which can be interpreted as Jesus rejecting his family in the New Testament: “And his mother and his brothers arrived, and standing outside, they sent in a message asking for him[Mk 3:21] … And looking at those who sat in a circle around him, Jesus said, 'These are my mother and my brothers. Whoever does the will of God is my brother, and sister, and mother.”’[26][3:31-35].’

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_(mother_of_Jesus

First, delimiting the text back to ‘Mark 3:21-22 - His Family are concerned about Jesus’, we can see that Jesus is being hassled by some of his relatives: 'When His relatives heard of this they set out to take charge of him, convinced he was out of his mind.’

• note here, that Mark does not mention ‘Jesus’ mother’.

The next section is ‘Mark 3:22-30 - Allegations of the Scribes’. Although this does not mention Jesus’ relatives, he is dealing with Scribes and using very strong language with them, and I would say he even seems annoyed and I wonder if this might be continuing angst and frustration with his relatives from earlier, in 3:21-22; "If a kingdom is divided against itself it cannot stand".. I am steeping away from the point of my thread though, so moving on to the bit which people seem to often misinterpret.

‘Mark 3:31-35 - The True Family of Jesus’:

'His mother and brothers now arrived and, standing outside, sent in a message asking for him. A crowd was sitting round him at the time the message was passed to him. “Your mother and brothers are outside asking for you”. He replied, “Who are my mother and my brothers?" And looking around at those sitting in a circle about him, he said: "Here are my mothers and my brothers. Anyone who does the will of God, that person is my brother and my mother.”

First, we have to distinguish between ‘his relatives’ mentioned earlier and his ‘mother and brothers’ mentioned in this section. Notice also that the language used is not even ‘family’ but Mark distinguishes between ‘relatives’, ‘family’ (used in other passages) and ‘brothers’ and also ‘mother.’

So we first of all might not be talking about the same ‘relatives’ who did not understand Jesus’ mission earlier, to his ‘mother and brothers’, who have come to speak with him. They may have even heard about these other ‘relatives’ (?)and decided to make sure if Jesus was okay. His mother always gets a special mention, her name singled out. So following this line of reasoning I would say that if Mary were amongst those ‘relatives’ who were annoying Jesus initially then her name would have been specified alongside the ‘relatives’. This is the first point. The second, because it is only after reading that first paragraph of the delimited text, people assume Jesus is berating his family to other people i.e:- because of these annoying relatives in 3:21-22.

It is likely that Jesus’ mother and brothers heard the confusion from earlier and went out to find him. I want to point out that this is what mission is about: going out to witness to Jesus, to go and find him, to look for Jesus in the world, in others. So Jesus’ mother and brothers were indeed doing the “Will of the Father”. So when Jesus is turning back to people listening to him - yes, they are doing what is needed too by listening to him, which is why I think he was annoyed by his ‘relatives’ earlier; who were not listening - rather, he is turning back to the people in the tent, and saying to them “Who are my mothers and brothers: here are my mothers and brothers…”. The people in the tent can also be mothers and brothers (and sisters and children), just LIKE, his mother and brothers outside the tent. There is no intended insult to his own family. He is, I think, showing that each moment, time and place, is very important. Whoever you are with is who we are to see Jesus in and treat them accordingly. His time at that point was with those people in the tent so those people are tending also to Him - in those moment sthey are also family. And if he was commending those in their witness to him, by saying that they can also be his “mothers and brothers”, then, he wouldn’t commend them by basing the commendation on people who annoyed him. So he is commending them by suggesting they can be good like his mother and brothers outside who by coming to find him are doing the will of the father.

Over and out.

 

[Gorgias]

this passage is often misinterpreted even by so-called scholars as it has here been here in this person’s misinterpretation:

The times I’ve seen it interpreted in interesting ways, it’s been done with the intent to defame Mary (and, specifically, the Church’s Marian dogmas).

It is likely that Jesus’ mother and brothers heard the confusion from earlier and went out to find him. I want to point out that this is what mission is about: going out to witness to Jesus, to go and find him, to look for Jesus in the world, in others. So Jesus’ mother and brothers were indeed doing the “Will of the Father”.

Hmm… I’m not sure I’d agree with you. The question comes down to why His “mother and brothers” were there. All that Mark gives us is that “they are asking for you.” In essence, having come across Jesus while He was preaching, they were asking (at the very least) to interrupt His preaching. That doesn’t seem to be the ‘will of the Father’.

In any case, they were attempting to use their familial relationship to assert that they had priority over Jesus. This is the dynamic that Jesus rebuts: it’s not a bloodline that makes one beloved in Jesus’ eyes, it’s that one does the will of God. (Don’t forget the context here: Jesus is talking to 1st century Jews, including the scribes. They believed that a person had a relationship with God only if they were a descendant of Abraham (that is, if they were Jewish). Jesus is indirectly refuting that assertion, here.)

I wonder if this might be continuing angst and frustration with his relatives from earlier, in 3:21-22; “If a kingdom is divided against itself it cannot stand”.

No, I don’t think so. Remember, in this part of the passage, Jesus is defending against the claim of the scribes that He casts out demons by the power of Satan. Jesus’ response is that a kingdom that fights itself, weakens itself. Jesus isn’t talking about his family, he’s talking about the reference to casting out demons.

 

[steve53]

This is good example where understanding of the context of a Gospel quote can be very useful, and put a tether on speculations about meaning.

Anyone interested in the Gospels to that depth should be familiar with the history of that era. Surprisingly, thanks to Josephus and the Gospels themselves, we have a good grasp on things back then.

Historical figures common to both the New Testament, the Jewish historian Josephus, and secular Roman historians like Tacitus can be followed and a time line of constructed. I like Hagan’s “Year of the Passover” and “Fires of Rome” for this purpose. He constructs a very solid body of evidence for a A.D. 36 crucifixion date, and plots much of his data around the activities of Herod Antipas, Syrian President Lucius Vitellius, Tiberius, Caiuaphas, Ananus, Agrippa, etc etc.

To the point, when Jesus rebuffs his family in Mark who had come to visit him, he was in the last year of his ministry. At the time, in A.D. 35, Jesus had taken up the mantle of John the Baptist, whom Herod Antipas had arrested in late A.D. 34 and executed early in A.D. 35. This happened in southern Perea, in Macherus, where Herod was preparing to invade Arabia (Nabotea). John was a thorn in his side. Herod, of course, was forced to actually execute John because of his wife Herodias and Salame’s dance.

Mark documents the period when Jesus fled the Judea/Perea region to “retreat” to the Galilee to keep away from Herod Antipas and angry Temple priests. Jesus likely ramped up his activities when Herod’s army was destroyed by the Arabians in the late summer of A.D. 35. A sign from God?!

Jesus was preaching mainly on the east side of the Galilee and out of Antipas’ kingdom in the Decapolis. He was drawing huge crowds, and probably it was known he was going to return to Judea and Jerusalem- which he eventually did in time for the Feast of the Dedication.

Nazareth is not far away from the southeastern part of the Galilee where he was preaching. Jesus probably had gotten word that his mother and brother were angry and fearful, and wanted him to return home. So Jesus knew what they wanted when someone informed him that they had shown up outside a place where he was staying, and hence his reply.

Jesus probably DID see them later, of course, but this was not included in the Gospel.

 

[Gorgias]

This is good example where understanding of the context of a Gospel quote can be very useful, and put a tether on speculations about meaning.

Jesus probably had gotten word that his mother and brother were angry and fearful, and wanted him to return home. So Jesus knew what they wanted when someone informed him that they had shown up outside a place where he was staying, and hence his reply.

Sorry – unless I misunderstand you, I think you’re claiming that Mary wanted Jesus to abandon His ministry. Umm… wha??? :nope:

 

[steve53]

Well, that is a very reasonable conclusion to make and is fully supported by the facts, though I realize it is somewhat at odds with Catholic dogma.

 

[friardchips]

Well, that is a very reasonable conclusion to make and is fully supported by the facts, though I realize it is somewhat at odds with Catholic dogma.

Yes, but I am more interested in Catholic interpretation, that accepts the whole truth, rather than bits and bobs here and there that do not gel together, and so only lead to a lack of confidence in dogma and doctrine. And so unreasonable - we have faith for a reason and reason for our faith.

Thank you anyway for your writing though. It was still interesting to read your historical account based on early research.

 

[friardchips]

Sorry – unless I misunderstand you, I think you’re claiming that Mary wanted Jesus to abandon His ministry. Umm… wha??? :nope:

Exactly! Complete nonsense!

If Mary was a coward then she would not have had her Son in the first place; Mary would not have asked Him to perform a miracle at The Wedding as she would have been too scared that people might point Him out; she would have most certainly been shown to interfere many times if that were her character. It is suprising the lengths people will go to, citing all these fancy references, and yet completely miss any consistency in Scripture!

 

[friardchips]

The times I’ve seen it interpreted in interesting ways, it’s been done with the intent to defame Mary (and, specifically, the Church’s Marian dogmas).

Hmm… I’m not sure I’d agree with you. The question comes down to why His “mother and brothers” were there. All that Mark gives us is that “they are asking for you.” In essence, having come across Jesus while He was preaching, they were asking (at the very least) to interrupt His preaching. That doesn’t seem to be the ‘will of the Father’.

Think about the bigger picture here. Our Lady is the Mother of the Church. The Church IS mission by her very existence. Our Lady is the first missionary (The Visitation). Our Lady is the Mother of vocations (Mother to the ‘beloved disciple’). Mary going to find Jesus is mission. His Mother with His brothers is a sign of mission. Bear in mind, that they didn’t necessarily know He was preaching. They came out to find Him. This is what they were called to do. Mary was always devoted. Faith-filled. This is the Church representation. The Mother of Christians (‘Mother and Brothers’) represent the Church who goes to meet Our Lord in the world. This IS the Will of the Father.

In any case, they were attempting to use their familial relationship to assert that they had priority over Jesus.

I don’t agree because that is an assumption. Our Lady was humble and “Full of Grace.” A person who is humble to her degree of humility is not deeply sinful. That would have been a selfish act.

This is the dynamic that Jesus rebuts: it’s not a bloodline that makes one beloved in Jesus’ eyes, it’s that one does the will of God. (Don’t forget the context here: Jesus is talking to 1st century Jews, including the scribes. They believed that a person had a relationship with God only if they were a descendant of Abraham (that is, if they were Jewish). Jesus is indirectly refuting that assertion, here.)

Okay. But that doesn’t mean to say there has to be a rejection, because that would be inconsistent for the interpretation to be a turning away from His own family. He never turns away. That is not true of His character. Rather, it is about the Church, in Him, being inclusive. To gather. To find. To bring Him further into the world and people’s lives.

No, I don’t think so. Remember, in this part of the passage, Jesus is defending against the claim of the scribes that He casts out demons by the power of Satan. Jesus’ response is that a kingdom that fights itself, weakens itself. Jesus isn’t talking about his family, he’s talking about the reference to casting out demons.

Yes. But I am thinking that He was human and divine. He is talking here about the casting out of demons. And of course what He says is Gospel. But He may have felt upset at the same time over what had just happened. We cannot deny His humanity. And the first passage I’ve referred to definitely does not say his ‘mother and brothers’. It uses unfamiliar language, to suggest ‘relatives’ who are not so close to Him. If it were His ‘mother’, then she would have been mentioned, because whenever Mary is mentioned, she is not just bunched together with ‘relatives’. So this passage is really open to deeper exegesis.

I get what you are saying completely though about Him being inclusive of outsiders. And this being a demonstration for the Jewish scribes too.

 

[Gorgias]

Well, that is a very reasonable conclusion to make and is fully supported by the facts

I disagree. You’re ignoring some very important facts:

• Mary was visited by an angel.
• This angel told her that her son – miraculously conceived by the power of God – would be called the “Son of God”
• She is also told that he will rule forever.
• She understands the import of these statements sufficiently to direct her son to perform a miracle at Cana.
• She sees his ministry and his miracles, and hears his teaching.

This woman, then, would encourage him to abandon (or at least curtail) his ministry? That makes no sense.

, though I realize it is somewhat at odds with Catholic dogma.

‘Somewhat’ at odds?

 

[friardchips]

I disagree. You’re ignoring some very important facts:

• Mary was visited by an angel.
• This angel told her that her son – miraculously conceived by the power of God – would be called the “Son of God”
• She is also told that he will rule forever.
• She understands the import of these statements sufficiently to direct her son to perform a miracle at Cana.
• She sees his ministry and his miracles, and hears his teaching.

This woman, then, would encourage him to abandon (or at least curtail) his ministry? That makes no sense.

‘Somewhat’ at odds?

Read this: Luke 8:19-22!

My CTS Bible comments:

‘Lk has changed the position of this encounter. Instead of being the final incident of rejection of Jesus by his own people, leading into the parables, it is the positive response to the Word fo God in the parables. By removing this distinction between family and listeners to Jesus, he makes the family the prime hearers of the word.’

So if there is any rebuke, it is on the scribes and pharisees and jewish-held beliefs to do with belonging. But as we read in all the texts, our Lord is in a tent. This tent has to be symbolic in terms of taking the tent away from the Temple which was torn in two. My :twocents:

Mark may have been writing for the gentiles which is why he puts his emphasis on outsiders but this does not mean rejection of his own immediate family as Mark does not mention our Lord’s mother eariler where the negative event involving his ‘relatives’ occured - the event which seemingly then puts negative emphasis later on ‘The True Family…’.

And if we are to read without negative goggles then surely the more loving and inclusive and devoted interpretation is more acceptable. IOW, even scholars get it wrong sometimes (possibly!).

 

[Gorgias]

The Mother of Christians (‘Mother and Brothers’) represent the Church who goes to meet Our Lord in the world. This IS the Will of the Father.

But, that’s not what the passage says; it simply says that, while Christ is engaged in teaching, they arrive and ask to see Him.

I don’t agree because that is an assumption.

I think it proceeds from the text: they “ask for him” while He is otherwise engaged in teaching the people and the scribes. At the very least, it’s an interruption (and, in fact, Christ is interrupted, because he responds to the request!).

Our Lady was humble and “Full of Grace.” A person who is humble to her degree of humility is not deeply sinful. That would have been a selfish act.

I’m not suggesting that she is ‘deeply sinful’.

Okay. But that doesn’t mean to say there has to be a rejection

A rejection of what? Them, personally? No, I’m not asserting that. Of their request? That seems more reasonable. After all, Christ did not submit to every request made of Him.

, because that would be inconsistent for the interpretation to be a turning away from His own family. He never turns away.

Agreed; Christ certainly didn’t ‘turn away’ His family. Rather, he asserted only that their claims on His time didn’t trump His ministry.

It uses unfamiliar language, to suggest ‘relatives’ who are not so close to Him.

Who’s making assumptions now?

Here’s the thing: the text explicitly says that it is those who are close to Him! You’re looking at the NAB, I’m guessing, which says “[w]hen his relatives heard of this.” Would it surprise you to learn that this isn’t what the text says here – that this is an interpretation of what the text says? (This is also the translation of the NIV, but not of the RSV or any of the Latin versions.)

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’? You’re not going to like the answer, I’m afraid.

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. That’s what translators are seeing in this passage: 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.

So this passage is really open to deeper exegesis.

It definitely is. And, this exegesis would require knowledge of Mark’s literary techniques and of the original Greek of the passage.

 

[steve53]

I disagree. You’re ignoring some very important facts:

• Mary was visited by an angel.
• This angel told her that her son – miraculously conceived by the power of God – would be called the “Son of God”
• She is also told that he will rule forever.
• She understands the import of these statements sufficiently to direct her son to perform a miracle at Cana.
• She sees his ministry and his miracles, and hears his teaching.

This woman, then, would encourage him to abandon (or at least curtail) his ministry? That makes no sense.

‘Somewhat’ at odds?

LOL.

I knew that statement would cause concern.

I guess we can’t think of Mary as a concerned mother worried to death that her son would go to Jerusalem and be executed like her nephew John the Baptist.

But a secular interpretation cannot be faulted in coming to a more humanistic conclusion. It is certainly not malicious. Hagan was very favorable to the early Christians, I thought.

The Gospels, and the New Testament, are filled with historical references. It is only natural to see how they fit in with Jewish and Roman history.

It was probably the Early Christian Fathers who preserved the very texts historians use to shed light on the early first century A.D.- Tacitus, Suetonius, Josephus, Philo and others.

FWIW.

 

[friardchips]

But, that’s not what the passage says; it simply says that, while Christ is engaged in teaching, they arrive and ask to see Him.

When reading along, also read inbetween, the linear.

I think it proceeds from the text: they “ask for him” while He is otherwise engaged in teaching the people and the scribes. At the very least, it’s an interruption (and, in fact, Christ is interrupted, because he responds to the request!).

Hmm…not sure. Because this would take it out of context with everything else written. I did check with a book I have been very slow in opening, as of yet, and while it did say that Mark does indeed deal with messages often using three passages at a time to prove a point, it did say this triplet’s conclusion was purposefully left as ambiguous. But there is more to read on this yet!

However, I would add that the Holy Spirit inspired these writers; hence, why they are saints. And so the Holy Spirit is going to be inspiring truth, and being aware of the truth, being Truth, the book is going to contain areas in which room for the bigger picture can breathe or better be understood over time as the Church grows and deepends in her understanding. For instance, St. Augustine said that during exegesis we have to start at a premise of proving to see if a Scriptural truth is True. Now we can’t do that if we deal with passages only on an individual basis, and not only can we not, it is non-effective to do so and non-accordant (think this might be a new word) with Church teaching.

So I start by recognising:

Each Gospel writer has his own style and his own audience.
Each Gospel writer might be bringing out different messages when dealing with the same accounts.
But…this does not go as far as to suggest that one Gospel writer’s message could be the opposite of another, because this would be to suggest that the Holy Spirit is divided against Himself, which We know, He isn’t.
So…the Gospels have to tally, truth-wise. So we have to look at them as a whole, also.
We say the accounts are true, divinely inspired, and cannot go against each other.
We can affirm that love towards all people with an indiscriminatory attitude is at the heart if our Lords’ message and that He is the fulfillment of Scripture.
So…taking all this into account, and going by the very fact that Mary is always named, and when present is always used to directly point to Jesus (in faith), we can see that to cast her into a slightly negative light would be to go against all else in Scripture. Hence, why Mark left it open. Maybe this was done also so that pagans at the time would not herald Our Lady as a goddess.
Also, we look at Luke’s account and it affirms that Mary and our Lord’s brothers are a good example of family.

I’m not suggesting that she is ‘deeply sinful’.

I didn’t think you were. Actually Steve53 said something apt. And I would say there is plenty of room for Mary to be mother without sinning. She pondered with faith and pondered all of Scripture in order that her insight could help her serve her Son. There is room for a mother to worry about her son and this might even be considered not only natural but a mother’s duty; however, I fail to see how any untrusting slant from Our Lady’s person, fits in with anything else in the Bible. Her unknowing was never matched with mistrust or mistakes. Her ponderation was always with faith and trust.

A rejection of what? Them, personally? No, I’m not asserting that. Of their request? That seems more reasonable. After all, Christ did not submit to every request made of Him.

People do assume it is a rejection of them but I don’t think this is acceptable. But even to think that it is a rejection of a request I think is equally as unthinkable. Our Lady, as shown in the Wedding at Cana, is not turned away. It might be though, that our Lord does what is right in justice and mercy, so His justice might be to ignore a request (if) He is interrupted, but actually, as in The Wedding, He rewards faith trhough His mercy. So, what you said earlier about Him relenting, could fit in with Our Lady, being the advocate to Him. Personally, I think that for the Gospels to agree, there is no interruption, not from His point-of-view.

Agreed; Christ certainly didn’t ‘turn away’ His family. Rather, he asserted only that their claims on His time didn’t trump His ministry.

A valid argument but inconsistent with the rest of Scripture where Our Lady is concerned. I would say the same possibly if it were just his ‘brothers’ but it doesn’t.

Who’s making assumptions now?

From this point on I have to get back to you on the rest of your response as I am going to look up my sources to see how close in translation to the original text. My Bible is CTS and not a lazy translation but will check anyway. A fair point you raised.

Thank you so far!

 

[friardchips]

Here’s the thing: the text explicitly says that it is those who are close to Him! You’re looking at the NAB, I’m guessing, which says “[w]hen his relatives heard of this.” Would it surprise you to learn that this isn’t what the text says here – that this is an interpretation of what the text says? (This is also the translation of the NIV, but not of the RSV or any of the Latin versions.)

Hi! Checked my Bible: The CTS New Catholic Bible (which we knew), and its says:

*'The Roman Translations used are those familiar from the books used in the Roman Catholic liturgy, the Jerusalem Bible and the Grail Psalter…The biblical text is preceded by a resume of the Constitution of Vatican II on the Bible, which sums up the Church’s view of the part played by the Scriptures in the life of a Christian…’*IOW, accurate translations, which of course it would be, come to think of it, otherwise I wouldn’t have bought it in the first place!

What Bible or Commentary are you referring to?

I’ll look up the rest of your response for the accurate translation of ‘relative’ soon when I’ve dug a bit deeper with my Commentary and then we are on even ground. I’d like to know. It might just simply be that Mark put a different twist on it but I still think it would be odd if he implied a completely different message to what Luke explicitly highlighted.

Back soon.

 

[Gorgias]

LOL.

I knew that statement would cause concern.

LOL…!

I guess we can’t think of Mary as a concerned mother worried to death that her son would go to Jerusalem and be executed like her nephew John the Baptist.

No, that’s not it at all. “Mary as a concerned mother” is one thing; “Mary as attempting to thwart her son’s ministry” is quite another.

But a secular interpretation cannot be faulted in coming to a more humanistic conclusion.

Agreed; yet, this doesn’t mean that we should avoid the teaching of the Church in order to accept an interpretation that runs at odds with it…

It is certainly not malicious.

True enough. Yet, ‘not malicious’ doesn’t imply ‘accurate’.

 

[Gorgias]

Hmm…not sure. Because this would take it out of context with everything else written.

Umm… but that’s precisely the technique that he uses, throughout his Gospel!

However, I would add that the Holy Spirit inspired these writers; hence, why they are saints. And so the Holy Spirit is going to be inspiring truth, and being aware of the truth, being Truth, the book is going to contain areas in which room for the bigger picture can breathe or better be understood over time as the Church grows and deepends in her understanding.

Two thoughts for you: first, the inspired version of the Bible is the original, not any later translations into other languages. The Church doesn’t claim that every translation is inerrant (or even that Catholic translations are all inerrant). So, especially given that we’re talking about the way that the Greek is translated into other languages, it’s not really relevant to appeal to the Holy Spirit (unless, of course, you’re talking about the ways that the Church teaches infallibly).

So…taking all this into account, and going by the very fact that Mary is always named, and when present is always used to directly point to Jesus (in faith), we can see that to cast her into a slightly negative light would be to go against all else in Scripture.

Is she ‘cast in a negative light’ when she goes against Christ’s wishes at Cana? Of course not. Mary is sinless, but that does not mean that she was always correct in every judgment that she made. Are you claiming that she never burned dinner or was wrong about anything? There’s a qualitative difference between ‘sinless’ and ‘inerrant’; I don’t believe that the Church has declared Mary as the latter.

Personally, I think that for the Gospels to agree, there is no interruption, not from His point-of-view.

OK. That’s an interpretation that’s non-standard.

A valid argument but inconsistent with the rest of Scripture where Our Lady is concerned. I would say the same possibly if it were just his ‘brothers’ but it doesn’t.

The rest of Scriptures assert that Mary was never wrong about anything? Or is it just that they’re silent on the question? I’m not buying the assertion that Mary must be without error; Scripture (and dogma) merely assert that she is without sin. Making a mistake is not the same as sinning…

My Bible is CTS and not a lazy translation

I’m not quite certain what you’re asserting here…?

Checked my Bible: The CTS New Catholic Bible (which we knew), and its says:

'The Roman Translations used are those familiar from the books used in the Roman Catholic liturgy, the Jerusalem Bible and the Grail Psalter

Yes: the CTS is based on the Jerusalem Bible, and it utilizes the Grail Psalter, and it’s used for liturgy in the UK (just as the NAB is used for liturgy in the U.S.).

IOW, accurate translations, which of course it would be, come to think of it, otherwise I wouldn’t have bought it in the first place!

You’re talking about translation here. However, our discussion is about your personal interpretation of what the translation means, and not the translation itself…!

What Bible or Commentary are you referring to?

I’m referencing the Greek New Testament, and pointing to other translations:

Vulgate: Et cum audissent sui, exierunt tenere eum.
Knox: When word came to those who were nearest him
NASB: When His own people heard of this
D-R: (If memory serves, the Douay-Rheims translates this as ‘friends’)

In terms of commentaries, IIRC, the Sacra Pagina commentary on Mark discusses the Markan ‘sandwich’ technique and the phrase ‘those near him’.

I’ll look up the rest of your response for the accurate translation of ‘relative’

Take your time. Realize, however, that the word ‘relative’ doesn’t show up here in the Greek. It’s not a translation of ‘relative’; it’s a translation of ‘those near him’.

 

[friardchips]

Umm… but that’s precisely the technique that he uses, throughout his Gospel!

Two thoughts for you: first, the inspired version of the Bible is the original, not any later translations into other languages. The Church doesn’t claim that every translation is inerrant (or even that Catholic translations are all inerrant). So, especially given that we’re talking about the way that the Greek is translated into other languages, it’s not really relevant to appeal to the Holy Spirit (unless, of course, you’re talking about the ways that the Church teaches infallibly).

Is she ‘cast in a negative light’ when she goes against Christ’s wishes at Cana? Of course not. Mary is sinless, but that does not mean that she was always correct in every judgment that she made. Are you claiming that she never burned dinner or was wrong about anything? There’s a qualitative difference between ‘sinless’ and ‘inerrant’; I don’t believe that the Church has declared Mary as the latter.

OK. That’s an interpretation that’s non-standard.

The rest of Scriptures assert that Mary was never wrong about anything? Or is it just that they’re silent on the question? I’m not buying the assertion that Mary must be without error; Scripture (and dogma) merely assert that she is without sin. Making a mistake is not the same as sinning…

I’m not quite certain what you’re asserting here…?

Yes: the CTS is based on the Jerusalem Bible, and it utilizes the Grail Psalter, and it’s used for liturgy in the UK (just as the NAB is used for liturgy in the U.S.).

You’re talking about translation here. However, our discussion is about your personal interpretation of what the translation means, and not the translation itself…!

I’m referencing the Greek New Testament, and pointing to other translations:

Vulgate: Et cum audissent sui, exierunt tenere eum.
Knox: When word came to those who were nearest him
NASB: When His own people heard of this
D-R: (If memory serves, the Douay-Rheims translates this as ‘friends’)

In terms of commentaries, IIRC, the Sacra Pagina commentary on Mark discusses the Markan ‘sandwich’ technique and the phrase ‘those near him’.

Take your time. Realize, however, that the word ‘relative’ doesn’t show up here in the Greek. It’s not a translation of ‘relative’; it’s a translation of ‘those near him’.

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?!

The four translations you’ve given from the Knox etc…could still mean those in close proximity. The references I’ve been looking into so far, suggest the family of our Lord as separate to the family that can become His followers, in Mark. Apart from one source, which suggests it is left ambiguous - the middle account of the triplet being the overall message. All sources point to Luke removing the divison between His actual family and His chosen. It would appear, quite purposefully.

You say that this style was unconventional all the way through his Gospel so it makes sense to find out why (which I think is more about inclusion than separation). Sure, when Our Lady could not find our Lord when a boy, and he said “Did you not know that I have to about my father’s business…”, this suggests that Mary did not necessarily make mistakes, but did naturally what a mother would do and could be seen as having a duty to do: act with motherly concern for her offspring. But this also gives rise to Mary always going in search of her Son. Which as you say, is not sinful. In fact, it is an act of faith. 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. The middle account summary is very much condemning those who not only worry for Him, but who thought He was possessed with demons. So I think we have to tread carefully - because the middle concludes the triplet - when thinking that the family in the first account could include his immediate family. It doesn’t have to, to make sense, and it doesn’t do away with Mark’s triplet, to think otherwise. So it sitll makes sense moreso that Mark’s account leaves some room for the reader to decide.

Maybe Mark left it ambiguous to test the faith of readers, that we might put our hearts where our faith is. Because Luke definitely seems to answer the question explicitly for us.

Will eventually respond to your paragraphs in turn…

 

[Mintaka]

Mary didn’t go against Jesus’ wishes at Cana in any way.

As we talked about on a different thread, “What is that between me and thee?” is exactly the Greek translation of the Hebrew for what was said when Abraham bought the Cave of Machpelah from Ephron the Hittite to bury Sarah in.

Ephron mentioned the money and then said, “What is that between me and thee?” (He also took the money, so he wasn’t blowing Abraham off.)

This expression means, “There is a covenant between you and me, so I will accept whatever you have asked or whatever you have offered me. No problem.”

Mary’s faith and her marriage with God is being directly compared to Abraham’s faith and his marriage to Sarah. Jesus responds with the same friendliness that Abraham received from Ephron. The wedding at Cana becomes a stronger sign of God’s loving care for his people than even the tombs at Machpelah of Sarah and Abraham, Isaac and Rebecca, and Jacob and Leah. (Rachel had died in childbirth too far away, and was buried on the road to Bethlehem.) Machpelah is still there, thousands of years after Ephron sold the land and granted Abraham’s request, so Cana being a bigger sign, and the beginning of Christ’s miracles, is very big stuff.

(Btw, in Jeremiah 31:15-17, he prophesies to the people being taken to Babylon that Rachel is interceding for them with God, and that God hears Rachel’s prayer:

"Thus says the Lord: 'A voice was heard on high of lamentation, of mourning, and weeping, of Rachel weeping for her children, and refusing to be comforted for them, because they are not.

“Thus says the Lord: ‘Let thy voice cease from weeping, and thy eyes from tears: for there is a reward for thy work,’ says the Lord, ‘and they shall return out of the land of the enemy. And here is hope for thy last end,’ says the Lord, ‘and the children shall return to their own borders.’”

Yeah, intercession by the deceased saints isn’t a new thing.)

 

[friardchips]

Mary didn’t go against Jesus’ wishes at Cana in any way.

As we talked about on a different thread, “What is that between me and thee?” is exactly the Greek translation of the Hebrew for what was said when Abraham bought the Cave of Machpelah from Ephron the Hittite to bury Sarah in.

Ephron mentioned the money and then said, “What is that between me and thee?” (He also took the money, so he wasn’t blowing Abraham off.)

This expression means, “There is a covenant between you and me, so I will accept whatever you have asked or whatever you have offered me. No problem.”

Mary’s faith and her marriage with God is being directly compared to Abraham’s faith and his marriage to Sarah. Jesus responds with the same friendliness that Abraham received from Ephron. The wedding at Cana becomes a stronger sign of God’s loving care for his people than even the tombs at Machpelah of Sarah and Abraham, Isaac and Rebecca, and Jacob and Leah. (Rachel had died in childbirth too far away, and was buried on the road to Bethlehem.) Machpelah is still there, thousands of years after Ephron sold the land and granted Abraham’s request, so Cana being a bigger sign, and the beginning of Christ’s miracles, is very big stuff.

(Btw, in Jeremiah 31:15-17, he prophesies to the people being taken to Babylon that Rachel is interceding for them with God, and that God hears Rachel’s prayer:

Yeah, intercession by the deceased saints isn’t a new thing.)

Mary at Cana showed immense faith-filled trust in her Son and this was the beginning of His mission, and a sign of Mary’s perfect disciplehip, and a sign for us that He never turns her requests down

 

[catholictiger]

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.