Question about Mark's view of Mary

[simspt]

Why would Mark in his Gospel state that the family of Jesus including his mother thought he was beside himself if she new already who he was considering his birth?

 

[CalCatholic]

This is a good question, but Mark doesn’t portray any of his disciples very well in his gospel, they all seem kind of dense. Then you have a completely different portrayal of Mary in Luke’s gospel in which she says ‘yes’ to God and gives birth to our Savior, and all generations will call her blessed. And in John’s Gospel you have Mary at Jesus’ side at his first miracle (sign) and at the foot of the cross with the beloved disciple (after all the rest had fled). Maybe Mark did not have the earlier teachings of Jesus’ birth, or chose not to use them. That is probably why we have four gospels, to get all the pieces of the puzzle of Jesus’ life, nearly 2000 years later.

 

[Joe_Brown]

Marks Gospel is the Gospel of the poor is it not? Does that contribute to what you said about his presentation of the disciples?

 

[simspt]

This is a good question, but Mark doesn’t portray any of his disciples very well in his gospel, they all seem kind of dense. Then you have a completely different portrayal of Mary in Luke’s gospel in which she says ‘yes’ to God and gives birth to our Savior, and all generations will call her blessed. And in John’s Gospel you have Mary at Jesus’ side at his first miracle (sign) and at the foot of the cross with the beloved disciple (after all the rest had fled). Maybe Mark did not have the earlier teachings of Jesus’ birth, or chose not to use them. That is probably why we have four gospels, to get all the pieces of the puzzle of Jesus’ life, nearly 2000 years later.

To my understanding Mark’s Gospel is most likely the oldest and Luke and Mathew probably used Mark as one of their sources. If so then the different portrayals of Mary in this particular story seem to of been changed by the later Gospel writers. Im having a hard time understanding the portrayal of Mary by Mark. I have heard some explain that this was done most likely due to the message Mark was trying to convey to his specific audience at the time he wrote it.

 

[CalCatholic]

To my understanding Mark’s Gospel is most likely the oldest and Luke and Mathew probably used Mark as one of their sources. If so then the different portrayals of Mary in this particular story seem to of been changed by the later Gospel writers. Im having a hard time understanding the portrayal of Mary by Mark. I have heard some explain that this was done most likely due to the message Mark was trying to convey to his specific audience at the time he wrote it.

This is from the reading guide of the Catholic Study Bible;
‘One of the intriguing features of Mark’s portrayal is that the disciples have a hard time understanding Jesus. As the Gospel drama unfolds and the Passion of Jesus approaches, the disciples begin openly to misunderstand Jesus and eventually fail him. The Gospel will end, however, on a note of reconciliation and renewal:… There is little doubt that Mark sees the disciples not simply as historical figures from the past but as representatives of the Christians of his own time. The instruction Jesus gives his followers, the difficulty they encounter in understanding who Jesus truly was, and Jesus’ unbreakable bonds with them despite their failures are all meant as a challenge and consolation to the Christians who read the Gospel.’
I don’t know if this helps?

 

[simspt]

This is from the reading guide of the Catholic Study Bible;
‘One of the intriguing features of Mark’s portrayal is that the disciples have a hard time understanding Jesus. As the Gospel drama unfolds and the Passion of Jesus approaches, the disciples begin openly to misunderstand Jesus and eventually fail him. The Gospel will end, however, on a note of reconciliation and renewal:… There is little doubt that Mark sees the disciples not simply as historical figures from the past but as representatives of the Christians of his own time. The instruction Jesus gives his followers, the difficulty they encounter in understanding who Jesus truly was, and Jesus’ unbreakable bonds with them despite their failures are all meant as a challenge and consolation to the Christians who read the Gospel.’
I don’t know if this helps?

I understand the pedagogical and pastoral importance of potraying the disciples as representatives of the Christians of his own time and relating the difficulties that even they experienced in the Lord’s presence. I guess the part I am still having a difficult time understanding is why particularly Mary would be portrayed claiming that Jesus was beside himself considering the special graces she was given by God.

 

[po18guy]

There are two areas in Mark 3 which show that Jesus’ relatives and friends were concerned for him. The context of His teaching and the particular bible translation we use make a difference here. The New Jerusalem bible and the New American bible name the group as “relations” or “relatives”, while the New International Version calls them “family” and the Ignatius bible calls them “friends”. Recall here that friends is the term that Jesus used for the twelve (John 15:15). This immediately follows His appointment of the twelve, so they had little understanding of Him at this time.

Mark 3:20-21 Then Jesus entered a house, and again a crowd gathered, so that he and his disciples were not even able to eat. When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, “He is out of his mind.”

Note that in Mark 3:20-21 it was “his family” members who were concerned. Mary is not named among the group that said this. Also consider the verses immediately following. The scribes arrived from Jerusalem and stated that Jesus was possessed by an unclean spirit. Why would they devote the time and effort to make the journey from Jerusalem to Jesus’ home place unless something quite noteworthy was occurring? We know, from the remainder of scripture, the type of behavior that unclean spirits produce. Does this not indicate that Jesus was teaching very passionately, seeming to them to be “possessed” or “out of his mind”? The bible’s incompleteness in such matters points us back to the Church.

However, Mary is mentioned by her motherhood further along in chapter 3:

Mark 3:31-35 Then Jesus’ mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone in to call him. A crowd was sitting around him, and they told him, “Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you.” “Who are my mother and my brothers?” he asked. Then he looked at those seated in a circle around him and said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does God’s will is my brother and sister and mother.”

In Mark 3:20 we see that “they were not able to eat”. Yet, Jesus kept teaching the crowds. Compare this to the feeding of the four thousand (Matthew 15:29-39), in which the crowds had been with Jesus for three days. Because of this, He took compassion on them and multiplied the fishes and loaves. So, clearly, the people hung on His every word, even forgetting to eat in some cases.

In Mark 3:31-35, there is no mention that Mary is the one sending the message - only that she was with his “brothers” or “relatives” or “family” (depending upon the translation). In the Jewish culture of that time, women were not given credibility (Mark 16:11, Luke 24:11), so it was very likely the men in the group who sent the message. All of this seems to be over concern about eating, but Jesus, Who is the bread from heaven (John 6:33), was feeding them the food of eternal life (John 6:26-27).

Remember that a lack of understanding on Mary’s part is not sin, but rather a part of human nature. The twelve were with Jesus for three years, yet frequently failed to understand Him (Mark 4:13, 8:17-21, 9:32, Luke 9:45, 18:34). In Luke 24:45, Jesus had to open their minds so that they would then understand the scriptures, and that also applies to us today.

 

[simspt]

Remember that a lack of understanding on Mary’s part is not sin, but rather a part of human nature. The twelve were with Jesus for three years, yet frequently failed to understand Him (Mark 4:13, 8:17-21, 9:32, Luke 9:45, 18:34). In Luke 24:45, Jesus had to open their minds so that they would then understand the scriptures, and that also applies to us today.

But would not Mary clearly understand or at least not be surprised by what Jesus was doing and saying in this particular story considering the nature of how she gave birth to him and the revelation she received. Is she not the first Christian disciple according to the Nativity story? I guess I am just having a difficult time understanding how Mary giving birth to Jesus the way she did and being with him for as long as she was could think something was wrong with him for his particular actions in this particular story. When I look at the same story from the other Gospels it seems this difficulty drops off but Mark’s story was most likely written before the others. I agree a lack of understanding is not a sin. I am in no way implying that.

 

[po18guy]

But would not Mary clearly understand or at least not be surprised by what Jesus was doing and saying in this particular story considering the nature of how she gave birth to him and the revelation she received. Is she not the first Christian disciple according to the Nativity story? I guess I am just having a difficult time understanding how Mary giving birth to Jesus the way she did and being with him for as long as she was could think something was wrong with him for his particular actions in this particular story. When I look at the same story from the other Gospels it seems this difficulty drops off but Mark’s story was most likely written before the others. I agree a lack of understanding is not a sin. I am in no way implying that.

This is one area in which scripture by itself is simply inadequate. It does not specify if Mary was worried about Jesus because He had not eaten, or if she was concerned about the nature of His teaching. Again, it mentions her only in conjunction with the group which sent a message to Him, and still does not specify whether she was the sender, or if the others were. It seems that only the others thought he was out of His mind - but they had little understanding of what He was actually doing. They saw the physical while He was manifesting the spiritual.

I think that Mary understood much more than is written, just as Jesus did and said much more than is written. Mary consistently “pondered” or “kept these things in her heart”. Neither implies action or words, but rather contemplation. She is not recorded to have spoken here, only to have accompanied those who did. Jesus could very well have been teaching all day, or longer, which might have provoked His friends/relatives to question His actions.

 

[Della]

But would not Mary clearly understand or at least not be surprised by what Jesus was doing and saying in this particular story considering the nature of how she gave birth to him and the revelation she received. Is she not the first Christian disciple according to the Nativity story? I guess I am just having a difficult time understanding how Mary giving birth to Jesus the way she did and being with him for as long as she was could think something was wrong with him for his particular actions in this particular story. When I look at the same story from the other Gospels it seems this difficulty drops off but Mark’s story was most likely written before the others. I agree a lack of understanding is not a sin. I am in no way implying that.

There is no evidence that Mary herself thought her Son “beside himself”. Mark only states that she was there and that she was outside waiting for him–why she was there at that particular time and why his family wanted him we do not know. We have to remember that Mark was a disciple of Peter, so in reality this is Peter’s Gospel. We are getting Peter’s remembrances here. It seems he never asked Mary about this but only had Mark record the incidents to teach particular lessons meant to aid fellow Christians.

And there is no evidence whatsoever that Mark was the first Gospel. Some, and I stress the word some, modern scholars have put forward the idea that his was the first for the ridiculous reason that it is the shortest Gospel account, saying that it was the simplest account and that Matthew and the others “added” to it as they wrote theirs. Once again, there is NO evidence for this only conjecture based on nothing. Not very convincing.

It is much more likely that Matthew kept a record of those sayings and events he saw as important, being that he was more educated than his fellow Apostles and was with Jesus from the start. A fragment of his Gospel that dates before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, using terminology dating even earlier than that has been found. Now, that makes perfect sense to me. John wrote later, putting his emphasis on Jesus’ divinity and Luke no doubt spoke to Mary herself, which is why his Gospel has her account of the annunciation and her visit to Elizabeth, etc.

Mary was not being denigrated or downplayed or rebuked or any other such thing by Mark’s account. Peter merely wished to convey that all the disciples as well as Jesus’ immediate family (cousins) were clueless about Jesus’ mission–this says nothing whatsoever about what Mary knew or wanted. Peter intended to give God all the credit and the glory for the faith of the Apostles and for the things Jesus said and did. That’s all there is to it.

 

[po18guy]

And there is no evidence whatsoever that Mark was the first Gospel. Some, and I stress the word some, modern scholars have put forward the idea that his was the first for the ridiculous reason that it is the shortest Gospel account, saying that it was the simplest account and that Matthew and the others “added” to it as they wrote theirs. Once again, there is NO evidence for this only conjecture based on nothing. Not very convincing.

It is much more likely that Matthew kept a record of those sayings and events he saw as important, being that he was more educated than his fellow Apostles and was with Jesus from the start. A fragment of his Gospel that dates before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, using terminology dating even earlier than that has been found. Now, that makes perfect sense to me. John wrote later, putting his emphasis on Jesus’ divinity and Luke no doubt spoke to Mary herself, which is why his Gospel has her account of the annunciation and her visit to Elizabeth, etc.

Referring to Fr. Kenneth Baker’s excellent book Inside the Bible, it is quite possible that Matthew was actually the first Gospel, as there are good arguments from tradition and language use that it was written about the year 43, within 10 years of Christ’s death. Recent scholars (past 100 years only) argue that it was written about AD 70, but this is only recent opinion. Mark is believed to have been written about AD 60, while Saint Peter was in Rome. John Mark (“Mark”) was known as a cousin of Barnabas, who was himself a companion of Saint Paul. Mark was known as interpreter and translator for Saint Peter. So, his Gospel can, in effect, be seen as the Gospel according to Peter. Mark’s Gospel is the most brief, but contains much detail.

A lot of non-Catholic influence has crept into contemporary Christian thought. It seeks, for its own reasons, to minimize the importance, the stature, even the remembrance of Mary in Christian life. Apart from the Church, the bible clearly states that Mary is blessed. One must wonder who or what is behind the effort to deny this fact.

 

[Della]

Referring to Fr. Kenneth Baker’s excellent book Inside the Bible, it is quite possible that Matthew was actually the first Gospel, as there are good arguments from tradition and language use that it was written about the year 43, within 10 years of Christ’s death. Recent scholars (past 100 years only) argue that it was written about AD 70, but this is only recent opinion. Mark is believed to have been written about AD 60, while Saint Peter was in Rome. John Mark (“Mark”) was known as a cousin of Barnabas, who was himself a companion of Saint Paul. Mark was known as interpreter and translator for Saint Peter. So, his Gospel can, in effect, be seen as the Gospel according to Peter. Mark’s Gospel is the most brief, but contains much detail.

A lot of non-Catholic influence has crept into contemporary Christian thought. It seeks, for its own reasons, to minimize the importance, the stature, even the remembrance of Mary in Christian life. Apart from the Church, the bible clearly states that Mary is blessed. One must wonder who or what is behind the effort to deny this fact.

 

[simspt]

Not to get off subject here but I think that there is evidence that Mark was written first. A pretty strong argument is that of testing the theological consequences of positing Marcan dependence on the other Synoptics. For example Mark would have omitted the Lord’s Prayer and the four beatitudes that Matt and Luke agree upon. If Mark drew on Matt then Mark 10:17-18 would have complicated Matt 19:16-17 by introducing the objection to giving Jesus a title that belonged to God alone and again Mark 6:5 would have introduced the idea that Jesus couldn’t do miracles in Nazareth changing the statement in Matt 13:58 that he did none. Again Mark would of deliberately omitted the Infancy narratives on even the details tha Matt and Luke agree. Again if Mark depended on Matt and luke he would have omitted positive passages such as Matt 16:16-19, 19:28 and Luke 22:31-34,22:29-30. Mark 4:38 makes the disciples more rude to Jesus than in Matt 8:25. I think when using parallel columns you can see the theological difficulty in the idea that Mark was written after Matt and Luke and used them as sources. This kind of argument is in most NT introductions and i believe most NT scholars including Catholic scholars hold to Mark being written before the other synoptics.

 

[peary]

Why would Mark in his Gospel state that the family of Jesus including his mother thought he was beside himself if she new already who he was considering his birth?

I think that Mary understood that she was to bear a child who would be the Son of God, but how He would react in the world she did not understand immediately, but gradually. He may have given no indication since the time of his finding in the temple that He was the Savior and probably acted normally up until the time where His family and mother thought He was a little ‘eccentric’. That was a period of about thirty years until His ministry began. If you act one way for about thirty years and then all of a sudden your behavior changes, people do get alarmed.

 

[po18guy]

Not to get off subject here but I think that there is evidence that Mark was written first. A pretty strong argument is that of testing the theological consequences of positing Marcan dependence on the other Synoptics. For example Mark would have omitted the Lord’s Prayer and the four beatitudes that Matt and Luke agree upon. If Mark drew on Matt then Mark 10:17-18 would have complicated Matt 19:16-17 by introducing the objection to giving Jesus a title that belonged to God alone and again Mark 6:5 would have introduced the idea that Jesus couldn’t do miracles in Nazareth changing the statement in Matt 13:58 that he did none. Again Mark would of deliberately omitted the Infancy narratives on even the details tha Matt and Luke agree. Again if Mark depended on Matt and luke he would have omitted positive passages such as Matt 16:16-19, 19:28 and Luke 22:31-34,22:29-30. Mark 4:38 makes the disciples more rude to Jesus than in Matt 8:25. I think when using parallel columns you can see the theological difficulty in the idea that Mark was written after Matt and Luke and used them as sources. This kind of argument is in most NT introductions and i believe most NT scholars including Catholic scholars hold to Mark being written before the other synoptics.

Since God’s truth was reveled to all who witnessed it, I cannot understand the concept that one Gospel must of necessity rely upon the others. God’s truth is unchanging and it makes not one bit of difference to me just when they were written. Much more important is that they were written, rather than when. Does this not discount or seemingly cast aspersion on the oral tradition, thus implying that individual Gospel accounts had some need to be reconciled with one another? In my mind, this forms a foundation for attack upon the entirety of the Gospels, no?

 

[po18guy]

Why would Mark in his Gospel state that the family of Jesus including his mother thought he was beside himself if she new already who he was considering his birth?

I think this might be reading into scripture what is not there in the text. To reiterate: The Gospel does not say that his family including Mary thought he was “beside himself” or “out of his mind”. Mary is not mentioned in Mark 3:20-21 where this phrase is used. Later in Mark 3:31-32, she is mentioned in light of her relationship to Him. It states that “his mother” was with them, and that they were asking for Him, but does not state that she thought the same as them. This is quite a difference.

Keeping in mind Mary’s nature of pondering things and keeping them in her heart, is it not more consistent that she remained silent?

 

[NotWorthy]

This is a good question, but Mark doesn’t portray any of his disciples very well in his gospel, they all seem kind of dense.

I think this is because Mark got his Gospel from listening to Peter’s sermons. It would seem that the good Peter learned his lesson in humility, as is evidenced from his Epistles.

 

[NotWorthy]

Regarding 3:20-21, Mary Healy, in her book, “The Gospel of Mark” puts it quite well.

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 sever discipline. Since Jesus’ foster father Joseph was presumably no longer alive (see 3:31), Jesus’ uncles and senior cousins would have considered him under their charge and answerable to them for his conduct.

Hearing of all the commotion surrounding him, these relatives feel duty bound to set out, probably from his native village of Nazareth twenty miles away, to seize him - the same verb used later for his arrest (14:46). From their perspective, Jesus ought ot be back home making tables and chairs instead of attracting throngs of sick and demon-possessed people, not to mention arousing the hostility of the religious leaders.

 

[NotWorthy]

Mary Healy continues on 3:31-32

After the incident with the scribes, Mark resumes the account of Jesus’ relatives who had set out to “seize him” (3:21). This time his mother and his brothers are specifically mentioned. So densely packed is the crowd sitting around Jesus that, like the friends of the paralyzed man in 2:4, they find it impossible to get near him. Mark highlights the contrast between Jesus’ family and the audience surrounding him by twice noting that his family members stood outside.

This 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 Jesus is “out of his mind” (3:21). 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). Here, as in the finding of Jesus in the temple (Luke 2:49) and at the cross (John 19:26-27), she is called to undergo a certain detachment in her earthly relationship to Jesus so that her faith can be stretched to encompass her far greater role in the new family that Jesus is establishing.

 

[Della]

Not to get off subject here but I think that there is evidence that Mark was written first. A pretty strong argument is that of testing the theological consequences of positing Marcan dependence on the other Synoptics. For example Mark would have omitted the Lord’s Prayer and the four beatitudes that Matt and Luke agree upon. If Mark drew on Matt then Mark 10:17-18 would have complicated Matt 19:16-17 by introducing the objection to giving Jesus a title that belonged to God alone and again Mark 6:5 would have introduced the idea that Jesus couldn’t do miracles in Nazareth changing the statement in Matt 13:58 that he did none. Again Mark would of deliberately omitted the Infancy narratives on even the details tha Matt and Luke agree. Again if Mark depended on Matt and luke he would have omitted positive passages such as Matt 16:16-19, 19:28 and Luke 22:31-34,22:29-30. Mark 4:38 makes the disciples more rude to Jesus than in Matt 8:25. I think when using parallel columns you can see the theological difficulty in the idea that Mark was written after Matt and Luke and used them as sources. This kind of argument is in most NT introductions and i believe most NT scholars including Catholic scholars hold to Mark being written before the other synoptics.

This is the “internal” approach that has NO evidence to back it up. There is evidence that Matthew was written quite early, which blows this whole elaborate theory out of the water. It doesn’t matter how many “scholars” hold to a theory with no outside evidence to support it, it’s still unsupported by any real evidence, and is actually damaging to Church teaching if taken too far. Indeed, the History Channel relies on it whenever it has a program on that challenges Church teaching (traditional interpretation, as they insist on calling it) for this very reason. It’s bad theorizing, makes for bad theology, and is unsupported by hard evidence.

As to Mary not understanding Jesus’ mission, once again, we have no clear evidence for this idea. Certainly, she wouldn’t necessarily have known every move he was to make, but she surely understood who he was and that whatever he did/said he had good reason for doing/saying it.