Original reading of Mark 3:21: for they said, He confused them

[Giuseppe]

Not:

for they said, "He is out of his mind".

But:

for they said, He confused them

Hence the original episode talked about Jesus making his presumed relatives totally fools and idiots and out of their mind: they wanted to capture him because he had made them idiot and crazy people.

Hence it makes sense the next episode where Jesus defends himself by saying:

How can Satan drive out Satan? If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand

As the logic goes, if Jesus has made fools his same relatives and his own mother, then how can he be a Satan?

Best theological answer: that Jesus who drives out his same presumed relatives is an alien, he is the Marcion's Jesus.

[Paul the Uncertain]

Back in December, Professor James McGrath did a blog piece on Mark 3:21

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/religionp ... h-him.html

exploring options within what is very vague Greek: something like "those near him [Jesus]" set out to "take him in hand" in a generic way, because they say he's experiencing some intense mental state.

The SBL Greek is:

καὶ ἀκούσαντες οἱ παρ’ αὐτοῦ ἐξῆλθον κρατῆσαι αὐτόν, ἔλεγον γὰρ ὅτι ἐξέστη.

The case is good (IMO) that those near him are his brothers, sisters and mother (because they show up where Jesus is holding court not many verses later). In what sense they meant to take hold of him is arguable - the same word refers to Jesus's healing touch and to the arrest of Jesus. When they get there, the family doesn't do anything aggressive. The motivating mental state is also arguable. Paul uses the same verb in contrast with sobriety, but Mark uses it for the reaction of the crowd to miracles and teachings.

Bottom line: the case is very weak that Mark meant that Jesus's family thought he was insane. The idea appears nowhere else in the canon, although the family is depicted as unbelieving (even elsewhere in Mark, in the "prophet is not without honor except ..." speech).

As to the "house divided" speech, it is unrepsonsive and a non-sequitur. Princes sacrificing their own foot soldiers is the history of war, and Jesus doesn't even kill the demons he evicts. On the other hand, Jesus's answer doesn't need to be good: his critics are surrounded, out-numbered and unarmed. They will take whatever answer Jesus gives them, and like it. This time; there will be another day.

[Giuseppe]

There is scriptural evidence that I am correct, here.

Almost weaker still is Dr. Schmieders“pillar” text (Mark 3:21) stating the opinion of “those with” Jesus that he was distraught. The passage, to begin with, is unintelligible as it stands in our versions ; and, as Dr. Smith suggests, the variant in Codex Bezae, making “the scribes and the rest" try to overpower Jesus, ‘‘for they said that he dements them,” is much more plausible.

(J. M. Robertson, Jesus and Judas, p. 148-149, my bold)

Hence, there is the concrete possibility that a previous source read something as:

The scribes and pharisees wanted to capture him, for they said, He confused them

...and then "Mark", against Marcion, could have edited the passage by replacing "scribes and pharisees" with "his mother and his brothers" and with Jesus being now "confused" in the place of scribes and pharisees.

[Giuseppe]

In red the interpolation:

Then Jesus entered a house, and again a crowd gathered, so that he and his disciples were not even able to eat. 21 When the scribes and pharisees heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, “He made them out of their mind.”

22 And the teachers of the law who came down from Jerusalem said, “He is possessed by Beelzebul! By the prince of demons he is driving out demons.”

23 So Jesus called them over to him and began to speak to them in parables: “How can Satan drive out Satan? 24 If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. 25 If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand. 26 And if Satan opposes himself and is divided, he cannot stand; his end has come. 27 In fact, no one can enter a strong man’s house without first tying him up. Then he can plunder the strong man’s house. 28 Truly I tell you, people can be forgiven all their sins and every slander they utter, 29 but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; they are guilty of an eternal sin.”

30 He said this because they were saying, “He has an impure spirit.”

Then Jesus’ mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone in to call him. 32 A crowd was sitting around him, and they told him, “Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you.”

33 “Who are my mother and my brothers?” he asked.

34 Then he looked at those seated in a circle around him and said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! 35 Whoever does God’s will is my brother and sister and mother.”

Hence, in the source used by "Mark", the family was phisically absent, and his mention was only part and parcel of a temptation to see if Jesus was human or not.

A marcionite theme.

In order to make the family enter phisically in stage, "Mark" had replaced the confused enemies with a family who believed that Jesus was the confused person.

So, now the reader can't deny that Jesus had a concrete, carnal family, even if the words of Jesus himself contradict apparently the "fact".

As corollary, Marcion is neutralized.

This proves that Mark sells moderate Marcionism. Mark is a moderate gentilizer, whereas Marcion a radical gentilizer.

[Paul the Uncertain]

McGrath was partial to "those close to him" being the scribes from Jerusalem, but not insistent.

There is a definite connection between the end of 3:21 and bginning of 3:22

21 ... they said, “He is [state of mind].”
22 The scribes who had come from Jerusalem said, “He is possessed by Beelzebul,” ...

and if "they" of verse 21 are "the scribes" of verse 22, then maybe the scribes described Jesus's state of mind when they set out for the house where Jesus is, and expanded on their belief after they arrived.

If so, then how they thought they could arrest him is a stretch. It was established at verse 20 that there is no elbow room in the house, and that's because it's packed with a crowd who are well disposed to Jesus. "They" of verse 21 have heard that at the time they set out.

Regardless of who "those close to him" are, they are not going to drag Jesus out of there against his will, and unless they are tactical morons, they know this as they set out for the house.

Also, under the they=scribes scenario, there was no sense in which the scribes were "para" him when they set out and when they spoke about Jesus's state of mind.

Personally, I think 21 onto 22 is just a well-executed segue with contrast: a speaker (relatively) kindly disposed to Jesus says one thing, whatever that is exactly, and then a speaker who is ill disposed to Jesus says something else. Good writing, IMO.

[Giuseppe]

McGrath

Hardly an authority for me. He is notoriously a fool Christian apologist.

[Paul the Uncertain]

Hardly an authority for me. He is notoriously a fool Christian apologist.

He and I have a nuanced relationship. I've criticized him on the blog for being too ready to believe authority (which is, after all, Christian adherence in a nutshell) and placing too much weight on Paul's "the brother(s) of the Lord" as dispositive of the historicity of Jesus. Against which, he's done great work on the Mandaeans. Also, apart from academic things, we have a shared interest in Romania and her people.

Regardless, his blog post offers some perspective on the subject verse, including not only his own view but that of others as well. It is an interesting verse, especially as an example of "something found in translation." There is slim justification for the common (but not universal) English version that Jesus's family thought he was crazy and wanted to take him into custody.

It also opens the opportunity to discuss "performance criticism," especially as a rebuttal to the stance that the ambiguity of the verse is a compositional flaw. As to the mythicist-historicist debate, it is another illustration (as if more were needed, but apparently so) that Mark was writing an entertaining performance piece, at best "based on" historical events, but not passively recording them.

Not bad for a dozen words.

[gryan]

Back in December, Professor James McGrath did a blog piece on Mark 3:21

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/religionp ... h-him.html

exploring options within what is very vague Greek: something like "those near him [Jesus]" set out to "take him in hand" in a generic way, because they say he's experiencing some intense mental state.

The SBL Greek is:

καὶ ἀκούσαντες οἱ παρ’ αὐτοῦ ἐξῆλθον κρατῆσαι αὐτόν, ἔλεγον γὰρ ὅτι ἐξέστη.

Re: the identity of "those near him [Jesus]"

In the previous verse, it says "he (singular) comes into a house." Maybe he had left the 12 to go their separate ways for the night. In that scenario, "those near him" could have been some of the 12 who "heard" and then "went out [from their respective houses nearby] to take him in hand" because they thought that, in his mental state, he needed their help.

In any case, thanks to this discussion, I no longer assume that "those near him" were family (ie "mother and brothers" who show up later in the Mark Ch. 3).

[Paul the Uncertain]

In any case, thanks to this discussion, I no longer assume that "those near him" were family (ie "mother and brothers" who show up later in the Mark Ch. 3).

Mark doesn't say outright, so fair enough. Mark leaves the matter as an inference for the audience, and audience inferences will differ.

I do think it worth noting that if those close to Jesus are any of the Twelve, then it seems extremely unlikely that their estimate of his mental condition would be madness, and correspondingly, their intention in trying to intervene physically would be in the nature of a rescue, not an arrest.

There is no obvious reason why his family's estimate and intention would be radically different.

Which brings me to a question, addressed to anybody: why is the "his family thought he was crazy" translation so popular?

It seems an experimental test of the "criterion of embarrassment." Presumably, the translators are mostly Christians, and mostly seeking to portray Jesus in a favorable light. Here is something embarrassing: those who knew Jesus best were not only skeptical of him, but thought him pathological to the point of attempting involuntary confinement. And yet there is little foundation for that in the source. The criterion predicts, then, that most translators would avoid asserting that Jesus's family thought he was crazy. There is no reason not to avoid that.

And yet, many translators go out of their way to interpret the ambiguity on the page in the worst light possible.

I know the criterion is on the ropes anyway, but seriously, with apologists like this, does Jesus need detractors? And if moderns will contemplate sending Jesus to the shuttered room for good cause shown, then why are ancients supposed to have trembled at the thought that John would dare to baptize Jesus, rather than vice versa?

[gryan]

A web search yielded an exegiesis on this GMark "mother and brothers" passage
DAVID N. BIVIN & JOSHUA N. TILTON 2019MAY30

Re: the identity of "those near him [Jesus]"

In the previous verse, it says "he (singular) comes into a house." Maybe he had left the 12 to go their separate ways for the night.

DAVID N. BIVIN & JOSHUA N. TILTON commented:

"καὶ ἔρχεται εἰς οἶκον (Mark 3:20). Scholars have noted that the use of the third person singular ἔρχεται (erchetai, “he goes”) is a bit unusual, since, following Mark’s version of Choosing the Twelve (Mark 3:13-19), readers would have expected the newly-appointed apostles to have accompanied Jesus.[11] This is only the first instance of apparent lack of agreement between verb and subject in Mark 3:20-21. The use of the “historical” present tense is both un-Hebraic and typical of Markan redaction.[12] Likewise, the mention of an unspecified house (Where is it? To whom does it belong?) is characteristic of Markan composition.[13] In the present case, it appears that the author of Mark located Jesus inside a house in order to create a contrast with Jesus’ family members, who will be left “standing outside” in the second part of the narrative (Mark 3:31; L18).[14]"
https://www.jerusalemperspective.com/18044/

In that scenario, "those near him" could have been some of the 12 who "heard" and then "went out [from their respective houses nearby] to take him in hand" because they thought that, in his mental state, he needed their help.

DAVID N. BIVIN & JOSHUA N. TILTON commented:

"οἱ παρ᾿ αὐτοῦ ἐξῆλθον (Mark 3:21). As we have already noted (see above, Comment to L6-10), identifying the referent of οἱ παρ᾿ αὐτοῦ (hoi par avtou, “the ones by him,” “the ones from him”) is fraught with difficulty. In Classical Greek οἱ παρά τινος (hoi para tinos, “the ones from someone”) typically referred to emissaries or representatives that came from someone,[41] but in Koine Greek the meaning was extended to “those associated with someone.”[42] Several times in 1 Maccabees, for instance, the phrase οἱ παρ᾿ αὐτοῦ refers to the supporters of Jonathan or Simon, brothers and successors of Judah the Maccabee (1 Macc. 9:44, 58; 10:87; 12:27, 28, 29; 13:52; cf. 1 Macc. 15:15; 16:16). In other cases, the “associated persons” indicated by the phrase οἱ παρά τινος are family members. The following examples are frequently cited in this regard:[43]

οὐ φροντίζει τῶν ἐν οἴκῳ ὁ ἀνὴρ αὐτῆς, ὅταν που χρονίζῃ πάντες γὰρ οἱ παρ᾿ αὐτῆς ἐνδιδύσκονται

Her husband is unconcerned for those in the house when he is long delayed, for all that are hers [οἱ παρ᾿ αὐτῆς] are clothed. (Prov. 31:21)"

καὶ Ἅβραμος μὲν ἐπὶ τούτοις εὐχαριστήσας τῷ θεῷ περιτέμνεται παραχρῆμα καὶ πάντες οἱ παρ᾿ αὐτοῦ καὶ ὁ παῖς Ἰσμαῆλος

And Abram gave thanks to God on account of these things and was immediately circumcised, also all that were his [οἱ παρ᾿ αὐτοῦ], even the child Ishmael. (Jos., Ant. 1:193)

It should be emphasized that while these examples do show that οἱ παρ᾿ αὐτῆς/αὐτοῦ can refer to a woman’s or a man’s family members, the phrase does not mean “family” or “relatives.”[44] It is the context that determines the referent of οἱ παρά τινος. In Prov. 31:21 the wife cares for those under her charge, and some of those (her children) happen to be family members. In Josephus’ paraphrase of the story of Abraham’s circumcision, we know that the commandment to circumcise applied to all of Abraham’s male slaves and offspring. By contrast, nothing in Mark’s Gospel has prepared readers to expect a reference to Jesus’ family. Therefore, readers can be excused if at first they assume that οἱ παρ᾿ αὐτοῦ in Mark 3:21 refers to the apostles. The apostles, after all, had just been appointed by Jesus ἵνα ὦσιν μετ᾿ αὐτοῦ (“so that they might be with him”; Mark 3:14), and so are the first of those who belong to Jesus who come to mind.[45] It is only when the reader continues with the rest of Mark 3:21 that he or she realizes that οἱ παρ᾿ αὐτοῦ must refer to persons other than Jesus’ apostles."
https://www.jerusalemperspective.com/18044/

-------------------

This level of detailed exegesis is rare. The work is grounded in "Jerusalem school hypothesis" (which I had not heard of before this morning): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem ... hypothesis