Mark: True Family of Jesus

[steve53]

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.

Oh, it’s ALL speculation. It just depends on the sources you accept.

I look at it humanistically.

We can look at Mary two ways. Her famous nephew John the Baptist had been recently executed by Herod Antipas, and Jesus was being urged to return to Jerusalem, take up the mantle of John and challenge the Second Temple priesthood.

Now…

Mary could have traveled to see her son to urge him on and wish him well in his mission of vengeance against the Second Temple Priesthood, Herod Antipas and his armies, and the Roman Empire.

Possible. Maybe.

Or she could have been horrified at what happened to her nephew John, and wanted to do everything she could to keep Jesus safe and out of harms way.

We will never know for sure. But what is the most reasonable speculation?

 

[steve53]

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.

Agreed by who? A lot of controversy still. To make sense of it all you have to get into the minutia of the best evidence. For that purpose, I highly recommend Hagan’s “Year of the Passover” where he concludes an A.D. 36 crucifixion date, with Jesus being in his late 40’s at the time of it. Several lines of evidence lead to these conclusions, but it is hard to summarize its 500 pages in the post. I will briefly address your other questions.

Namely:

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

***John might have four described, but that is not certain. Taking a late crucifixion date of A.D. 36 combined with a “annointing” date of A.D. 28 as seen in Luke- derived from the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius, you come up with an 8 year ministry. How long did Jesus spend as a “disciple” of John’s living at his camp in the wilds before he set out on his own? ***

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

In the Gospel of John, the year before he was crucified in A.D. 36, he was admonished by men in the temple for preaching with authority even though Jesus was “not yet fifty.” There have been many theories to explain this away, but the most reasonable is the most obvious- Jesus was, in fact, not yet fifty though close to it. This is also supported by an early birth year- especially if you assume the Star of East was Halley’s Comet. Ocurred around 12 B.C.

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.

How old was Mary when she gave birth? Yes, a first birth would make 13 or 14 reasonable. Sixty. Ok. I won’t split hairs.

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?

The assumption is that Jesus was “home” in that he was back in the Galilee after spending years in the Judea/Perea area with John the Baptist. Another assumption is that he stayed out of the lands of Herod Antipas because he was afraid of being arrested. The east coast of the Sea of Galilee was controlled by the Greek-Syrians, and not Herod Antipas, his brother Philip.

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

[IThe assumption is that anyone who is perfect is divine. Maybe a bad assumption. Certainly, if she were filled with God’s spirit she would be as close to divine as she could get. And she would know the future and not be concerned with his impending death, for she would also know that it would lead to a greater glory. But I stick with history and leave the theology to others.]

BTW, is your name really “Gorgias” or is that a sly form of “gorgeous.”

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

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.

Agreed by who? A lot of controversy still. To make sense of it all you have to get into the minutia of the best evidence. For that purpose, I highly recommend Hagan’s “Year of the Passover”

Help me out, here: who is this ‘John Hagan’? What are his credentials? Who is this publisher (the ‘Rauson Group’) who publishes his books (and seems not to have any other publications that I can find)?

Steve53:

Gorgias:

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

John might have four described, but that is not certain. Taking a late crucifixion date of A.D. 36 combined with a “annointing” date of A.D. 28 as seen in Luke- derived from the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius, you come up with an 8 year ministry. How long did Jesus spend as a “disciple” of John’s living at his camp in the wilds before he set out on his own?

Lots of presumptions here. There are different assumptions in play that would lead to a ‘late crucifixion date’ and to a ‘15th year of Tiberius’. These are best taken separately, wouldn’t you say? Putting them together and concluding “eight years” is a stretch.

Moreover, the notion of ‘Jesus as long-time disciple of John’ is something you’d find among the ‘historical Jesus’ crowd, which is pretty notorious for its far-flung and contradictory conclusions…

Steve53:

Gorgias:

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

In the Gospel of John, the year before he was crucified in A.D. 36, he was admonished by men in the temple for preaching with authority even though Jesus was “not yet fifty.” There have been many theories to explain this away, but the most reasonable is the most obvious- Jesus was, in fact, not yet fifty though close to it.

Unless, of course, the age of fifty has significance as an age at which a man is seen as an elder in the community, and therefore, whose opinions are to be respected.

Steve53:

Gorgias:

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?

The assumption is that Jesus was “home” in that he was back in the Galilee after spending years in the Judea/Perea area with John the Baptist.

Hmm… that’s an odd assumption. In the beginning of Mark chapter 2, we see that Jesus returns to Capernaum, and the word gets out that he’s ‘home’. In chapter 3, having gone “up the mountain” to name his apostles, he then “came home” (v. 20). It doesn’t really make sense to say – again! – that he’s “home”, if by saying this, all that Mark means is “he’s in the Galilee area,” since he’s been in that area for a while already. No – the assertion that he’s “home”, especially in conjunction with the references to family, seems to make more sense. More to the point, it seems that your assertion that his family had to travel to get to him doesn’t fit the description of the text…

Steve53:

Gorgias:

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

The assumption is that anyone who is perfect is divine. Maybe a bad assumption.

Yeah. Bad assumption.

Steve53:

Certainly, if she were filled with God’s spirit she would be as close to divine as she could get. And she would know the future and not be concerned with his impending death, for she would also know that it would lead to a greater glory. But I stick with history and leave the theology to others.

Sounds good. From a Catholic theological standpoint, though, we’d say that Mary was sinless (which doesn’t imply ‘perfect’ or ‘divine’ or ‘able to see the future’). Rather, though, we’d say that, if sinless, then Mary was able to trust in God’s will fully.

BTW, is your name really “Gorgias” or is that a sly form of “gorgeous.”

Nope – my handle is ‘Gorgias’. Think Plato’s dialogue…

 

[friardchips]

Oh, it’s ALL speculation. It just depends on the sources you accept.

I look at it humanistically.

What else can theology do but look in a human way WHILE appreciating that Scripture contains the divinely inspired Word of our Creator.

“To be humanist” - someone who is not ambiguous in his belief once told me - “in Christianity, is to become fully human, in our Creator”. IOW, relating this understanding to this subject, we see in Scripture the realisation of people’s potential to be who they are, in our Creator, by walking a path of witness offered to them, and therefore, the Church ascribes appropriately to those people all that is right to do, in honour of them.

We can look at Mary two ways. Her famous nephew John the Baptist had been recently executed by Herod Antipas, and Jesus was being urged to return to Jerusalem, take up the mantle of John and challenge the Second Temple priesthood.

Now…

Mary could have traveled to see her son to urge him on and wish him well in his mission of vengeance against the Second Temple Priesthood, Herod Antipas and his armies, and the Roman Empire.

Possible. Maybe.

Or she could have been horrified at what happened to her nephew John, and wanted to do everything she could to keep Jesus safe and out of harms way.

We will never know for sure. But what is the most reasonable speculation?

Neither. Although supporting and trusting in her Son is certainly true of Our Lady in Scripture.

 

[Gorgias]

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”).’

Which commentary is that?

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.

Note that παρ’ here means ‘near’. The ‘belonging to’ is already an interpretation. ‘Relatives’, then, is an even more remote interpretation, which takes the literal ‘near’ and the interpretive ‘belonging to’ and infers from it ‘relatives’. Remember: we’re discussing your assertion that ‘relatives’ implies ‘not-near relatives’, right?

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

Because of the triplet: this is Mark’s technique, so the only reason to assume ‘relatives’ is the relationship to the third part, in which we see “mother and brothers.” If we want to interpret οἱ παρ’ αὐτοῦ as ‘relatives’, it seems inescapable to conclude that this reference points back to “mother and brothers.”

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.

Let’s be fair, though: if the third part of the triplet was not there, then we would not translate this as ‘relatives’. If we do – and, in your original argument, that was your premise! – then we need to conclude “mother and brothers.” If you want to retreat from that argument, and suggest (instead) that this simply means ‘friends’, then that’s fine. You’ll have to re-work your assertions that you made at the outset, then.

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 has no bearing on the identity of those referred to as οἱ παρ’ αὐτοῦ, though. It simply asserts that the accusation being made (that Jesus is out of his mind) might not have been the assertion of the οἱ παρ’ αὐτοῦ, but rather, simply that those who are near Him are aware of the accusation. The quotation you’ve provided doesn’t help your case, it seems.

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.

The triplet/sandwich is the continuity! It’s what gives weight to the very translation of ‘relatives’ in the first place!

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

Just as a reminder: you still haven’t responded to my question about why Luke is relevant here…

 

[friardchips]

Which commentary is that?

‘Jerome Biblical Commentary’. It speaks of this other possibility. My other source is the CTS, as I said, and ‘The Writing of the New Testament - An Interpretation’, which also suggests ambiguity and not leading to the line of thinking you have put forward. So it would be helpful if I could compare these insights with what you are referencing, as you now can do with mine.

'Note that παρ’ here means ‘near’. The ‘belonging to’ is already an interpretation.

Not really. ‘Belonging to’ and ‘near’ can mean friends, brothers (his followers) etc…

‘Relatives’, then, is an even more remote interpretation, which takes the literal ‘near’ and the interpretive ‘belonging to’ and infers from it ‘relatives’.

The point is that it doesn’t. And this still doesn’t answer why Mark did not mention Our Lady’s name or her title. When he does later. As the second book I stated as a source says clearly, this all leaves room for the reader to make up their own mind, and is probably intentional. The second answers the emphasis for the first and third.

Remember: we’re discussing your assertion that ‘relatives’ implies ‘not-near relatives’, right?

The Jermone says that one interpretation could be that it means ‘relatives’ and that would indicate in this case ‘close relatives’; the other interpretation, is what I think makes more sense, which I noted as meaning followers or people close to either/and in close proximity and relationship.

Now It would appear to me something interesting, that Mark said the people were near to Our Lord, in whatever respect, but no mention of Our Lady, in the first of the three, but then in the third of the triplet, Our Lady as ‘mother’ is mentioned. This indicates that people were worried about Him and went to fetch Our Lady who no doubt knew where He would be. And that is the point. If you look through all the texts and be open to uniformity, you will see that Our Lady knows where to find Him, always. Otherwise, one is saying that Mark accidently did not mention Our Lady in the first account but then mentioned her as ‘mother’ in the third. This seems irrational and inconcise.

Because of the triplet: this is Mark’s technique, so the only reason to assume ‘relatives’ is the relationship to the third part, in which we see “mother and brothers.” If we want to interpret οἱ παρ’ αὐτοῦ as ‘relatives’, it seems inescapable to conclude that this reference points back to “mother and brothers.”

It doesn’t because the premise as I said before is not what is stated behind this line of reasoning.

Let’s be fair, though: if the third part of the triplet was not there, then we would not translate this as ‘relatives’. If we do – and, in your original argument, that was your premise! – then we need to conclude “mother and brothers.” If you want to retreat from that argument, and suggest (instead) that this simply means ‘friends’, then that’s fine. You’ll have to re-work your assertions that you made at the outset, then.

Not at all. This is confusing what I said. And you are making a mistake by thinking that you can ‘assume’ anything. That is not exegesis. There is formula.

If Mark left out the word ‘mother’ then the first thing we need to do is find out why.

This has no bearing on the identity of those referred to as οἱ παρ’ αὐτοῦ, though. It simply asserts that the accusation being made (that Jesus is out of his mind) might not have been the assertion of the οἱ παρ’ αὐτοῦ, but rather, simply that those who are near Him are aware of the accusation. The quotation you’ve provided doesn’t help your case, it seems.

It does. Because it changes the emphasis of mistrust to trust. If the first account of the triplet is a major episode of mistrust by those near to Our Lord, and Our Lady was there as one of them, then this leads on to a majorly different conclusion for the third triplet; compared to, the possibility Our Lady was there and wasn’t one who of those who mistrusted, or similarly, if she wasn’t there at all but only appeared in the third of the three accounts. And the second would have to act as qualifier not contradicting what we know.

The triplet/sandwich is the continuity! It’s what gives weight to the very translation of ‘relatives’ in the first place!

My point being is that relatives and family seem to be the point of the triplet and yet the ambiguity, which seems purposeful, is about Our Lady’s presence in the triplet.

Also, because the ‘sandwich’ hints at the emphasis, it can be distilled that the message of the second must not contradict the first and third! You see?

Just as a reminder: you still haven’t responded to my question about why Luke is relevant here…

Because Luke, in the same account, takes away any claim to differentiation in the third of the three accounts of the triplet - showing the reader that Our Lady is one of those who do Our Lord’s will. And it seems funny that Mark should have left this ambiguity only for Luke to go and correct it.

I apologise for any lack of continuity in my dialogue. I have had to go back loads of posts and it is proving difficult to track where we are. I ask again, with respect, to be enlightened as to your sources, if poss? Thanks.

 

[Gorgias]

‘Jerome Biblical Commentary’. It speaks of this other possibility.

Yes, but does it speak to why it makes the assertion of ‘family’? After all, I’ve already mentioned that οἱ παρ’ αὐτοῦ means “those near Him” – but I’ve given the explanation of why it means ‘relatives’ or ‘family’!

My other source is … ‘The Writing of the New Testament - An Interpretation’, which also suggests ambiguity and not leading to the line of thinking you have put forward.

Again, this book is an undergrad-level introduction to the NT; it’s not getting into the level of detail that we are, here. He only says “ambiguity”, which – on the face of it – is true! Scripture scholars have provided an exegesis which peels away some of the surface ambiguity – in fact, their translations themselves are the place where they’ve done this!

So it would be helpful if I could compare these insights with what you are referencing, as you now can do with mine.

Sure – let’s just start with three, right now, and maybe more, following:

Since it’s been a while since this conversation started, let’s review what positions we’ve staked out. You claimed that the ‘relatives’ aren’t the same as the ‘mother and brothers’ of Jesus:

friardchips:

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. … It is likely that Jesus’ mother and brothers heard the confusion from earlier and went out to find him

In fact, you make two other claims: first, that the Greek construction here is unknown and that the people referenced in Mk 3:21 aren’t close relatives:

friardchips:

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.

My position has been that the ‘relatives’ in Mk 3:21 and the ‘mother and brothers’ in Mk 3:31 are the same people. I’ve asserted that the literal text isn’t unique, but is used to the same effect elsewhere in the Bible. I’ve also pointed out that Mark’s literary technique to insert a story in between halves of another story (i.e., the infamous ‘Markan sandwich’) helps bring clarity to the two halves; therefore, the reference in v21 is continued by the passage beginning at v31.

With that in mind, let’s get to references. (continued in next post, so that the three references can fit in one post…)

 

[Gorgias]

Here are a few references for you:

• In Bringing the Gospel of Mark to Life, George Martin writes: “[v]31 Jesus’ relatives had earlier set out for Capernaum to seize him (verse 21), and now his mother and his brothers arrived. … They do not recognize that what Jesus is doing is the work of God.” (p75, emphasis original) And again, referencing verse 31: “Jesus does not obey his family’s summons. … In the society of the time, blood ties and family relationships were all-important. One’s identity was bound up with one’s kinship. Family obligations took precedence over individual achievement in a way that we, in our culture of individualism, might have a hard time fathoming.” (p. 76) Finally, he concludes, “Jesus’ apparent rejection of his natural family for a new family might shock us, and it would have been even more shocking in first-century Jewish culture. It will not be the last time that Jesus will elevate discipleship above family ties (10:29-30). As important as family ties are, Jesus is calling men and women to something more.” (p. 77)
• In her book The Gospel of Mark, Dr Mary Healy (professor of Scripture at Sacred Heart Major Seminary) writes, “[o]ne of Mark’s signature techniques is to ‘sandwich’ one story inside another so tht each sheds light on the other. In this case, he arranges the three scenes in vv. 20-35 into one block of material. In the first and third units Jesus is misunderstood by his own family.” Continuing, she asserts, “To understand the reaction of Jesus’ relatives, it is important to recognize what family bonds meant in the social context of the time. For the ancient Jews, as for many non-Western cultures today, an individual existed only as part of an extended family unit, whose authority structure, obligations, and customs governed every aspect of life. Any action by an individual was a reflection on the whole family, and any breach of family honor would usually meet with severe discipline.” (p. 75, emphasis original)

Dealing with vv31ff, she writes, “[t]his is the only time in Mark that Mary the mother of Jesus appears on the scene, although she is mentioned by name in 6:3. Mark does not indicate that she shares the opinion of those who think that Jesus is ‘out of his mind.’ But the episode does suggest that she does not yet fully comprehend the scope and significance of her son’s mission. She, like others, has to grow in understanding of the divine mystery that only faith can penetrate (see Luke 1:29, 34; 2:19, 50-51).” (p. 80)

Finally, she asserts, “Jesus’ reply must have sounded shocking in the cultural context of first-century Judaism. It is the first indication of a principle that will become clearer as the Gospel progresses: all earthly ties take second place to the kingdom of God (10:29-30; see Luke 9:61-62; 14:26). Even the closest of human bonds – familial bonds, which in Jewish society were all-important – are of lesser priority than Christian discipleship. … [Jesus] elevates [his followers] elevates them to a completely unexpected status: they are not merely his followers, they are his family. … In so doing, he is not rejecting his earthly family; rather, he is establishing a new basis for their claim on him.” (p. 80)

• Finally, let’s look at Donahue’s and Harrington’s book The Gospel of Mark (part of the Sacra Pagina series). There, we read, “When his relatives heard: ‘Relatives’ translates the Greek hoi par’ autou (lit. ‘those from him’). Though some prefer to translate this phrase as ‘disciples’ (see 4:10, hoi peri auton) rather than as ‘relatives’ or ‘family,’ the phrase is used in the Greek papyri for family members, and the Markan sandwich technique suggests that the people of 3:21 are the same as the family members of 3:31-35.” (p. 129)

And, referencing v31, they write, “Then his mother and brothers arrived: The narrative of the family begun in 3:20-21 resumes here” (p. 132). In their interpretation of this passage, they write, “[t]he first narrative, 3:20-21 and 31-35, deals with the family of Jesus. While the natural family of Jesus thinks he is unbalanced, the true family is disclosed as those who do the will of God” (p. 133). “The theme of discipleship begun in 1:16-20 is also intensified here. Jesus forms a new family that will be constituted by those whom he explicitly calls (the disciples) as well as those who are gathered around him to hear his teaching. … Solidarity with Jesus… makes a person into a brother, sister, or mother to Jesus… uch solidarity involves membership in a new human family not determined by blood ties but by the shedding of the blood of Christ.” (p. 135)

Hope this helps.

Blessings,
G.

 

[Gorgias]

‘Relatives’, then, is an even more remote interpretation, which takes the literal ‘near’ and the interpretive ‘belonging to’ and infers from it ‘relatives’.

The point is that it doesn’t.

I’m not sure what, at all, you’re trying to say here. Yes, it does do this, literally! The text says “those near him”, and the translators take it to mean ‘relatives’. You yourself concede that the translation is ‘relatives’.

Now It would appear to me something interesting, that Mark said the people were near to Our Lord, in whatever respect, but no mention of Our Lady, in the first of the three, but then in the third of the triplet, Our Lady as ‘mother’ is mentioned. This indicates that people were worried about Him and went to fetch Our Lady who no doubt knew where He would be. And that is the point. If you look through all the texts and be open to uniformity, you will see that Our Lady knows where to find Him, always.

That’s a very nice devotional statement; but the text doesn’t tell us this at all. In fact, you’re building up your own story here: Mark doesn’t tell us that “Mary led them to Him” or “they went looking for Mary and she took them to Him.” What you’re doing isn’t interpreting the Bible – it’s weaving your own story around what the Bible says. Let’s stick to the text of the Bible, shall we?

Otherwise, one is saying that Mark accidently did not mention Our Lady in the first account but then mentioned her as ‘mother’ in the third. This seems irrational and inconcise.

No, that’s not at all what we’re saying. Rather, we’re saying that the reference goes from general (‘relatives’) to specific (‘mother and brothers’). No ‘accident’.

friardchips:

Gorgias:

Because of the triplet: this is Mark’s technique, so the only reason to assume ‘relatives’ is the relationship to the third part, in which we see “mother and brothers.” If we want to interpret οἱ παρ’ αὐτοῦ as ‘relatives’, it seems inescapable to conclude that this reference points back to “mother and brothers.”

It doesn’t because the premise as I said before is not what is stated behind this line of reasoning.

I’ve substantiated the “line of reasoning” that I’ve asserted. Scripture scholars substantiate this line of reasoning. The premise is solid.

And this still doesn’t answer why Mark did not mention Our Lady’s name or her title.

If Mark left out the word ‘mother’ then the first thing we need to do is find out why.

Because he almost always does. The mention of ‘mother’ or ‘Mary’ is the exception in Mark, not the rule. Don’t make such an issue of it.

Mark doesn’t mention her by name – only once, in chapter 6, and in that context, it’s other folks who bring up Mary by name in order to poke fun at Jesus’ lowly family origins! You’re making too much of this: Mark doesn’t highlight Mary; the fact that he doesn’t do so here is merely another example of this aspect of his Gospel.

It does. Because it changes the emphasis of mistrust to trust. If the first account of the triplet is a major episode of mistrust by those near to Our Lord

It’s not ‘mistrust’, it’s ‘misunderstanding’. We don’t believe that Mary was omniscient, just sinless. One can trust, yet misunderstand, after all…

My point being is that relatives and family seem to be the point of the triplet and yet the ambiguity, which seems purposeful, is about Our Lady’s presence in the triplet.

It’s anything but ambiguous about her presence! Mark – who rarely mentions Mary in his Gospel – mentions her explicitly by name here! He’s making the point that family – not just cousins or half-brothers, but Mary too – don’t have the same claim on Jesus that their culture would assert; he’s relaying Jesus’ message that it’s unity with Jesus that creates the highest bond!

Also, because the ‘sandwich’ hints at the emphasis, it can be distilled that the message of the second must not contradict the first and third! You see?

The message of the second doesn’t contradict the first and the third, even in the interpretation that I’m espousing!

Because Luke, in the same account, takes away any claim to differentiation in the third of the three accounts of the triplet - showing the reader that Our Lady is one of those who do Our Lord’s will.

Luke does no such thing in his retelling of this story (see Lk 8:19-21).

This, however, seems to be your big sticking point. If you read nothing else that I’ve written to you, please reflect on this:

You seem to be mistaken regarding what’s going on in this story. You seem to presume that, if there’s a rebuke, then it’s Jesus’ family who’s being rebuked – and this makes you uncomfortable. Please realize: Jesus is not rebuking his ‘mother and brothers’ here – He’s rebuking His followers! Look at the passage again: it’s those on the inside, who are listening to Jesus, who tell Him that they’re there. In other words, it’s His followers who are saying, “well, it was nice hearing you talk, Jesus, but your family is here now. And, we all know that in our culture, family trumps everything else. So, we understand – it’s ok! – that you’re going to leave us now and go to your family.” And Jesus corrects them – not His family! – when He says “whoever does the will of God is my brother and sister and mother.” Jesus is not saying that ‘his mother and brothers’ do not do the will of God! That’s an illogical way to read the passage! Rather, Jesus is only saying that, if we think that our status as being in the ‘family’ of Jesus is blood ties, then we’re mistaken: our status hinges on “doing the will of God.”

 

[friardchips]

Giorgas, I’m sorry but your posts are all based on supposition not indepth research. These scholars are making surface analysis only. The books I am referencing are not infallible either (though they are used for MA Theology sources) but I remain sceptical because they give other alternative explanation which shows they are not sure.

Basically, Our Lord has only one immediate family blood relative - Our Lady. Due to the incarnation. So if St. Mark was going to mean by ‘belonging to’ or near to’ those relatives close to him, he would not be bunching up together immediate family blood relatives, because Our Lord only had one true immediate family blood tie. And she is not mentioned anywhere in the first triplet. Hence, why in the third, Our Lady and His disciples, are called ‘mother and brothers’ not ‘relatives’!

This only leaves the possibility that by relatives ‘near to’ or ‘belonging to’, this term in fact means, something else which we are meant to read into.

Now, you are assuming, by the fact that scholars seem to think they have all the answers, that the first qualifies the third, and that ‘relatives’ must be the qualifier for the conclusion to the third triplet.

I am saying that you are contradicting yourself, because you yourself have already mentioned that it is the second of the triplet that qualifies anything.

But I say it is not just the second which is key to the three.

And it is made ambiguous for a reason, the reason is not something simple, which you, and other scholars, have fallen for.

The conclusion is deeper. One to do with Our Lady. And one to do with who our Lord is.

It is a very deep and an almost cryptic triplet.

There is a reason why ‘mother’ is not mentioned in the first but the third. There is a reason that ‘relatives’ are mentioned in the first, but not the third. When we know already that Our Lord has only one immediate family 'blood ‘relative’ - so why the plural. There is a reason why St. Mark seems to differentiate, a little ambiguously, in the third about who those are who do the Father’s Will.

The reason is because by setting ambiguities, the reader has to conclude, with deeper exegesis, that Our Lord has only one real immediate family blood relative. Think about it. How else could he say this without over explaining.

---

And, Luke does take away the distinction. This is confirmed in all exegetical texts. So I am not even entering into something that is certified as definite. And this makes sense, because throughout Luke, Our Lady is the first missionary of evangelisation.

 

[friardchips]

The message of the second doesn’t contradict the first and the third, even in the interpretation that I’m espousing!

Exactly. And the second has to counter balance the first and third and give weight to the purposefully ambiguous conclusion.

The second, points to the fact that a house cannot stand against itself. The point is, is that the relatives in the first, who must be general relatives close by or who he has been in contact with are getting in His way of mission. But he has no immedaite family blood relatives, bar one, who is mentioned as ‘mother’. Not there. So Our Lady would not be bunched together with other relatives who are not immediate family unless she was mentioned specifically.

His ‘mother and brothers’ in the third have gone to find him, which is mission, and therefore following him.

There is a very obvious distinction in the comparison of texts from the third to the first and to say there isn’t, and it doesn’t matter who says it, is a false premise - a denial of the fact that St. Mark has obviously differentiatied between ‘relatives’ and ‘mother and brothers’. The second shows the difference between those who question His motives (general relatives) and those who go to seek him (his mother and brothers).

Also, the added question over who Our Lord is, is the reason, I think, that the ambiguity is there in the first place. We are to question what St. Mark means by ‘relatives’. And possibly to deduce, though I wouldn’t expect apologists to go this deeply with their exegesis in this day and age, that ‘relatives’ as a plural cannot mean immedaite family bloodline. Or He would have stipulated this by using a more intimate term as ‘mother’. And this gives rise to the question: who is our Lord.

Furthermore, the third the explains that the first ‘relatives’ are not those who do His will - his general relatives not his immediate family blood relative - thus telling us that all those who are there - ‘mothers and brothers’ are those who do His will, not those in the first. And those to whom He is speaking to, He is saying that they too can be His family who will know where to find Him.

Of course, He isn’t just going to say “Right, see you then”, in the middle of a conversation. That would be rude. He acknowledged His mother and brothers as having arrived and used them in an example of witness to finish his dialogue with His listeners. This would in fact be polite. If you were talking to people you wouldn’t just get up and walk out.

 

[friardchips]

And from this conclusion, we can see that ‘mother and brothers’ are different to ‘relations’ in that they are people who don’t get in the way of mission, they do not attempt to ‘divide the house’ - they are the true ‘family-disciples’ of the Lord. Because Our Lord has only one immediate family blood-relative (not plural) who is also ‘disciple’ and is known as His ‘mother’.

 

[Gorgias]

Giorgas, I’m sorry but your posts are all based on supposition not indepth research. These scholars are making surface analysis only.

‘Surface analysis only’? Really? That’s what you’re going with?

if St. Mark was going to mean by ‘belonging to’ or near to’ those relatives close to him, he would not be bunching up together immediate family blood relatives, because Our Lord only had one true immediate family blood tie.

Personal exegesis. (Based, I might add, on a poor understanding of Koine Greek.) If you’re unwilling to listen to what Scripture scholars have to say about the original Greek, why should what you assert about the Greek have any standing?

And she is not mentioned anywhere in the first triplet. Hence, why in the third, Our Lady and His disciples, are called ‘mother and brothers’ not ‘relatives’!

Because those are the words that Jesus himself used; Mark is using them here in v31 to set up Jesus’ response. Moreover, he made reference to their impending visit in v21.

Now, you are assuming, by the fact that scholars seem to think they have all the answers, that the first qualifies the third, and that ‘relatives’ must be the qualifier for the conclusion to the third triplet.

No; but a close reading of Mark shows that he uses this technique over and again. Your personal eisegesis of this passage wishes to deny this interpretation, so you deny this obvious use of the technique.

And it is made ambiguous for a reason, the reason is not something simple, which you, and other scholars, have fallen for.

You, alone, have “not fallen for” it? OK, then: that means that you’re embarking on personal interpretation of Scripture. You know that even the Bible says that that’s the wrong approach, don’t you?

It is a very deep and an almost cryptic triplet.

No. No it isn’t. Your desire to reach a particular conclusion makes you wish to posit it as ‘cryptic’, but the meaning isn’t as ‘cryptic’ as you assert.

The reason is because by setting ambiguities, the reader has to conclude, with deeper exegesis, that Our Lord has only one real immediate family blood relative.

So… you’re saying that the meaning of Jesus’ words is that Mary exalted and the rest of us are out of luck? :nope:

And, Luke does take away the distinction. This is confirmed in all exegetical texts.

Please provide an example, then.

So I am not even entering into something that is certified as definite.

Try me. Please reference the appropriate passage (Luke 8:19-21).

And from this conclusion, we can see that ‘mother and brothers’ are different to ‘relations’ in that they are people who don’t get in the way of mission, they do not attempt to ‘divide the house’ - they are the true ‘family-disciples’ of the Lord. Because Our Lord has only one immediate family blood-relative (not plural) who is also ‘disciple’ and is known as His ‘mother’.

Umm… ‘mother and brothers’ are explicitly the people who do come looking for Jesus! This isn’t a story about the exalted rights of family ties; it’s a story about how Christian discipleship rises above family ties! To apply a quote from Jesus: “you are greatly misled.” :sad_yes:

 

[friardchips]

So… you’re saying that the meaning of Jesus’ words is that Mary exalted and the rest of us are out of luck? :nope:

Interesting.

 

[Gorgias]

Interesting.

Seriously, though: in a text in which Jesus explicitly points to His followers and declares them family, you’re saying that the meaning to be found here is that Mary is Jesus’ only “real” relative?

 

[friardchips]

Seriously, though: in a text in which Jesus explicitly points to His followers and declares them family, you’re saying that the meaning to be found here is that Mary is Jesus’ only “real” relative?

The triplet has several implied meanings. IMO. And I think they intertwine. And the only way St. Mark could achieve this triangulation of meanings was to not draw obvious conclusions. The way he has worked the triplet leads the reader to discern the deeper meanings. And if we believe he was divinely inspired by the Holy Spirit then the triplet has to make sense, not just as a single triplet, but in connection with the rest of the gospel, and indeed, the other gospels, and indeed the whole Bible.

 

[friardchips]

…in fact, it would even be prophetic.

 

[Gorgias]

The triplet has several implied meanings. IMO.

In your opinion, then, should those meanings be mutually contradictory? Would the Holy Spirit say ‘yes’ and ‘no’ to the same question?

Of course not. And therefore, to conclude that this passage both means “blood relationships aren’t as important as the relationship one has with Jesus” and also “the blood relationship that Jesus shares with Mary is the only ‘real’ relationship He has” is unacceptable. In fact, it’s a personal eisegesis – you’re contradicting the mind of the Church, with a personally-developed interpretation of Scripture. And that, my friend, is not proper…

Blessings,
G.

 

[friardchips]

In your opinion, then, should those meanings be mutually contradictory? Would the Holy Spirit say ‘yes’ and ‘no’ to the same question?

Exactly. So why are you saying that our Creator would contradict Himself in the true light of what we know to be the truth.

Of course not. And therefore, to conclude that this passage both means “blood relationships aren’t as important as the relationship one has with Jesus” and also “the blood relationship that Jesus shares with Mary is the only ‘real’ relationship He has” is unacceptable. In fact, it’s a personal eisegesis – you’re contradicting the mind of the Church, with a personally-developed interpretation of Scripture. And that, my friend, is not proper…
Blessings,
G.

I’m afraid you have severaly misinterpreted what I am saying because you evidently either can’t grasp the truth in the triplet or because you don’t want to - which why I said “interesting” (I was being serious).

So I suppose I will have to try to explain again. In another way.

The word ‘mother’ and the word ‘brothers’ are not the same terms as ‘relatives’.

The term brothers did not mean blood brothers. We know our Lord had no blood brothers. Don’t we.

And the term ‘brothers’ was used in connection with the word ‘mother’ - who is our Lord’s only immediate family blood relative.

Both ‘mother’ and 'brother’s were not mentioned in the first of the triplet. Thye were used together in the third.

Similarly, the loose term of ‘relatives’ was not used in the third but in the first.

In the light of all we know to be true, do you deny the fact that Our Lady is the mother of His brothers - disciples of the Lord - with Our lady being the perfect disciple.

‘Close to’ and ‘belonging to’ are not explicit in stating who.

The term ‘relatives’ - ‘close to’ and ‘belonging to’ are not used in the third of the triplet.

All is done for a reason. So, we might as well start from the true premise that the Holy Spirit, who IS all knowledgable, did inspire this gospel, which we know He did. This is christological study. And if He did, the gospels do not lie. There is a reason for everything. But St. Mark evidently wishes the reader to read with the eyes of faith - prophetic, IOW. We know that a house divided cannot stand. And this is the sandwiched message. In the light of faith, we know Our Lady and His brothers were not against Him and Our Lady indeed trusted Him “explicitely”. And so in light of this knowledge, we know that Our Lord was not using His Holy Mother as an example of mistrust and we know that those ‘relatives’ in the first triplet must not have included His ‘mother’ and ‘brothers’ (disciples).

I go further and say that Our Lady being connected with the word ‘brothers’ so intimately in the third, implies that she is linked to the ‘brothers’, as the disciple - in the only real discipleship-sense of the meaning of ‘brothers’ - as she is the only disciple who is given a separate title - not ‘relative’, but ‘mother’.

 

[Gorgias]

Exactly. So why are you saying that our Creator would contradict Himself in the true light of what we know to be the truth.

I’m not: I’m saying that your personal interpretation, which you’re forcing on the text, leads to an internal contradiction; which is why your interpretation doesn’t work well here.

you evidently either can’t grasp the truth in the triplet or because you don’t want to

You’re missing a third possibility: your interpretation is deficient, and I’m simply trying to demonstrate this to you.

Similarly, the loose term of ‘relatives’ was not used in the third but in the first.

No – the word ‘relatives’ was not used at all! Rather, the translators understood, from the Greek phrase used, that ‘relatives’ were what was meant. Your whole interpretation hinges on a (perceived) difference between ‘relatives’ and ‘mother/brothers’ – and that word ‘relatives’ isn’t even in the text itself. Your interpretation is on shaky ground from the very beginning – since you are basing your interpretation on a target language and not the source language.

The word ‘mother’ and the word ‘brothers’ are not the same terms as ‘relatives’.

Both ‘mother’ and 'brother’s were not mentioned in the first of the triplet. Thye were used together in the third.

You’re making far too much of this, and drawing a meaning that simply is not present in the text.

In the light of all we know to be true, do you deny the fact that Our Lady is the mother of His brothers - disciples of the Lord

This is another rough spot in your exegesis: in this passage, the disciples of Jesus are already inside, and his “brothers” are outside. If you want to claim that the passage is about His ‘brothers’ being His disciples… then you need to deal with the fact that the apostles and His followers are distinct and different from His ‘brothers’ who are outside.

• with Our lady being the perfect disciple.

Of course she is. That’s why I claim that the point of the passage isn’t that Jesus is rebuking His mother (as some non-Catholic Christians sometimes claim), but that He is rebuking His disciples who presume that family ties trump discipleship.

‘Close to’ and ‘belonging to’ are not explicit in stating who.

And yet, that’s the translation.

The term ‘relatives’ - ‘close to’ and ‘belonging to’ are not used in the third of the triplet.

Immaterial. The action of the first part of the passage is continued in the third. To claim that these are different people is simply illogical.

And so in light of this knowledge, we know that Our Lord was not using His Holy Mother as an example of mistrust

That’s a rather strange assertion. Have you not read Luke 2 – the story of the finding of Jesus in the temple? Mary chides Jesus for what he’s done to them – causing them untold anxiety; Jesus responds that Mary does not understand that He must be in His Father’s house. If nothing else, it shows that Mary grew in her understanding of Jesus’ mission. I’ll point you to the fact that we’re discussing only the third chapter of Mark: asserting that Mary is growing in her knowledge is not a knock against her sinlessness or trust – it simply demonstrates that she was not gifted with infused knowledge. Don’t worry, friar – you won’t be betraying your Catholic identity by admitting this is true.