Who is My mother and my brethren?

[Giuseppe]

so the Evangelion, based on:
Adv.Marc.iv.19;Panarion 42

20 And it was told him by certain [people] which said,
Thy mother and thy brethren stand without,
desiring to see thee.
21 And he answered and said unto them,
[ Who is] My mother and my brethren?
My mother and my brethren are these
which hear My words, and do [them]

Note that the Catholic inserted Luke 8:19:

Now Jesus' mother and brothers came to see him, but they were not able to get near him because of the crowd

What is striking, however, in the sentence:

Thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to see thee.


is that it appears that the alleged false mother and those alleged false brothers had already been identified, and placed in a definite point of space and time.

This shows then what?

To my eyes, only the natural consequence of the erroneous conception about Jesus's identity.

If Jesus is a man, then he must have a particular mother and particular brothers (as having already been identified the father Joseph - by the inhabitants of Capernaum, at incipit of Evangelion - there is no need to repeat the name of Joseph), hence the denial of the conclusion by Jesus brings to deny the same premise: if Jesus did not have mother and brothers, then Jesus is not a man.

After all, that Jesus was invited to recognize those who are outside as his alleged mother and alleged brothers corresponds to a test with an uncertain outcome.
In the sense that the author of the test, or who intends to test Jesus, even if he already is persuaded about the (wrong) identity Jesus == the Messiah Son of Josep, is missing only the direct confirmation of the concerned individual. The need for confirmation by Jesus proves the purely hypothetical nature of the test, in other words, who is making the statement:

Thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to see thee.

is not really sure about what he is stating.

But the proto-catholic Luke inserted 8:19:

Now Jesus' mother and brothers came to see him, but they were not able to get near him because of the crowd

in order to show as a pure and simple FACT a priori that these people were real mother and brothers of Jesus. This becomes not more a test about the real identity of Jesus, but about the mere mental sanity of Jesus.

[Bernard Muller]

Now Jesus' mother and brothers came to see him, but they were not able to get near him because of the crowd

it appears that the alleged false mother and those alleged false brothers had already been identified, and placed in a definite point of space and time

Why "alleged false"? Why does it appear "Luke" wrote her gospel from Marcion's one?
From http://historical-jesus.info/53.html (Three arguments in favor of proving Marcion's gospel (of the Lord) was written after Luke's gospel), it happens I deducted the passage you quoted is much more likely to have been worked on by Marcion from gLuke rather than the opposite.

4) Lk 8:19-21 "Then his mother and his brothers came to him, but they could not reach him for the crowd. And he was told, "Your mother and your brothers are standing outside, desiring to see you.
But he said to them, "My mother and my brothers are those who hear the word of God and do it."
gMarcion "And it was told him by certain [people] which said, Thy mother and thy brethren stand without,desiring to see thee. 21 And he answered and said unto them, [Who is] My mother and my brethren? My mother and my brethren are these which hear my words, and do [them]." http://www.gnosis.org/library/marcion/Gospel2.html

Case 1: In gLuke, with Jesus having a blood mother, the narration makes a lot of sense: Jesus rejecting his true mother because she is not among his followers.

Case 2: Marcion claimed Jesus had no blood family, coming down from heaven in a docetist body; the gospel readers/listeners would know that already. Then why call a mature woman "your mother"? Maybe because that what she (or the "your brothers") declared?
But if "your mother" does not mean "your blood mother", what can it mean except a follower? However if "your mother" means a female follower (a rather pretentious title!), then "your sister" would have been a lot more appropriate (that would also eliminate the strange possibility of several women claiming to be "mothers" of Jesus!).

Also "Luke" declared the visitors are "his mother and his brothers". Anything affirmative coming from the narrator of (alleged) true events is meant not to be doubted. But "your mother and your bothers" (by blood) was unacceptable by Marcion. That's why Marcion skipped Lk 8:29 (in bold). Therefore it is someone then who declares the group is "your mother and your brothers", someone who could be fooled into thinking the would-be visitors were blood family members.

Also, despite the deletions & alterations, the passage in Marcion's gospel does not prevent "mother" and "brothers" to be understood as blood family members but allows for an alternative interpretation of "mother" & "brothers" (very dubious for "mother" = "mature female follower"!).

For these reasons, Marcion's version being original does not make sense to me, except if it is a truncated & modified version of a passage of gLuke.

Furthermore Marcion' version has "my words" instead of "the word of God". It is most likely because Marcion's ultimate God (also the Father of Jesus), not being the God of the Jews, was not known for issuing commands. But "Luke" had no reason for not keeping "my words".

[Giuseppe]

Case 1: In gLuke, with Jesus having a blood mother, the narration makes a lot of sense: Jesus rejecting his true mother because she is not among his followers.

I'm not saying that in gLuke the narration doens't make sense,but at contrary that the sense is changed into the direction you describe.

But if "your mother" does not mean "your blood mother", what can it mean except a follower?

I disagree entirely on this point. 'Your mother' means 'your blood mother' and this is very clear. Marcion put these words in mouth of people that didn't know the true identity of Jesus. These people thought (wrongly) that Jesus was a human Messiah but a Messiah that is reluctant to reveal itself in glory (against the Romans), therefore they want to move Jesus to reveal his true identity.

You should read the incipit of Evangelion in order to understand what I just said:

1:1 Beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. 1:2 In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, 1:3 when Jesus came down from above, he appeared and began teaching in the synagogue. 1:4 And all were puzzled at the gracious words coming out of His mouth. 1:5 And they said, ‘Isn’t this Joseph’s son? 1:6 Let be! What have we to do with you, Jesus! Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are – the Holy One of God.’ 1:7 But Jesus rebuked him and said to them: ‘No doubt you will quote to me the proverb, “Physician, heal yourself!”’ 1:8 They got up, forced him out of the town, and brought him to the brow of the hill on which their town was built, so that they could throw him down the cliff. 1:9 But he passed through the crowd and went on his way. 1:10 As the sun was setting, <all those who had any relatives sick with various diseases brought them to him.> He placed his hands on them and healed them. 1:11 Demons also came out, crying out: ‘You are the Son of God!’ 1:12 But he rebuked them, and would not allow them to speak, because they knew that he was the Christ.
source: http://markusvinzent.blogspot.it/2011/0 ... k-and.html

Note that 'Joseph' is already mentioned in Mcn at his incipit therefore no need of repeating his name in Luke 8:21. Note that the inhabitans of Capernaum want to kill Jesus from the first time they 'recognize' him because they thought that his death may hasten the arrival of the victorious Messiah son of David (IF only Jesus was really the warrior Messiah Son of Joseph).

But "your mother and your bothers" (by blood) was unacceptable by Marcion.

'unaccettable by Marcion' only if presented as an indisputable fact, or if declared by Jesus, but it is clearly not the case here.

That's why Marcion skipped Lk 8:29 (in bold). Therefore it is someone then who declares the group is "your mother and your brothers", someone who could be fooled into thinking the would-be visitors were blood family members.

What you are doing is just repeating the story of Luke and say that is earlier.

In Evangelion :

Luke 8:19 is absent, therefore it's not a FACT a priori that these people were Jesus' relatives.

The marcionite episode is very similar to incipit of Evangelion.
The pattern is similar:

1) Some people are victims of misconceptions. (the inhabitans of Capernaum, 'certain people' in 8:21 )

2) They express these misconceptions as if they were certainties. (‘Isn’t this Joseph’s son? Let be! in incipit, Thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to see thee, in our passage)

3) but Jesus disappointed their expectations, raising typical marcionite antitheses everywhere.
He is not the (Messiah) Son of Joseph, he has not a mother, he has not brothers.

Note that Luke, by inserting the interpolation Luke 8:19, turns into a indisputable fact a priori what was only a hypothesis (to test) in the mind of the questioners to Jesus.
But so doing, Luke carries a different sense of test in question: not more a test about the real identity of entity Jesus but a test about his mental phisical sanity (a 'horrid' leteralist reading with nothing of allegorical).


Moreover, you have clearly a problem: why Joseph is not mentioned in Luke 8:19-21, if Luke comes before? You should add explanations ad hoc and even literalist readings (for example that Joseph was dead in whiletime, etc.) therefore lowering your consequent.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

What you are doing is just repeating the story of Luke and say that is earlier.

I think you misunderstood our Bernard.

But if "your mother" does not mean "your blood mother", what can it mean except a follower?

I disagree entirely on this point. 'Your mother' means 'your blood mother' and this is very clear.

Bernard's argument based exactly on this assumption ("your mother" means "your blood mother"). Therefore it's easier to imagine that in the basical story Jesus has a blood mother. For what other reason the people claim, that "your mother" is out there?

The pattern is similar:

1) Some people are victims of misconceptions.
2) They express these misconceptions as if they were certainties.
3) but Jesus disappointed their expectations, raising typical marcionite antitheses everywhere.

Note that Luke, by inserting the interpolation Luke 8:19, turns into a indisputable fact a priori what was only a hypothesis (to test) in the mind of the questioners to Jesus.

Yeah, this may also possible. I hope you can still feel that it's harder to imagine.

[Giuseppe]

For what other reason the people claim, that "your mother" is out there?

For what other reason the demons claim ''I know who are you, the one saint of God'' ?

For what other reason the inhabitans of Capernaum claim ''Isn't this the Son of Joseph? Let be'' ?

For what other reason Peter claims ''Tu es Christus, the Son of living God'' ?

The demons are demons!

The inhabitans of Capernaum are potential killers!

Peter (called Cepha) is only a idiot and renegade!

ERGO All these people cannot say the truth!

I hope you can still feel that it's harder to imagine.

Sorry, but it's not the first time that in Mcn the presumed ''carnality''/''historicity''/''Jewishness''/''messiahship" of Jesus is introduced only in order to reject it.

My solution explains the absence of Joseph in Luke 8:19-21, your not.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

For what other reason the people claim, that "your mother" is out there?

For what other reason the demons claim ''I know who are you, the one saint of God'' ?
For what other reason the inhabitans of Capernaum claim ''Isn't this the Son of Joseph? Let be'' ?
For what other reason Peter claims ''Tu es Christus, the Son of living God'' ?

The statements do not have the same quality. What you quoted are proclamations, but in our example the people claim a fact. It is a fact about the mother (stands without with the brothers) and not about Jesus (except indirectly).

[Giuseppe]

The statements do not have the same quality. What you quoted are proclamations, but in our example the people claim a fact. It is a fact about the mother (stands without with the brothers) and not about Jesus (except indirectly).

I recognize this before you in my first comment of this thread, when I say that this is very striking.

It's because your osservation that for the first time in this episode in Mcn Jesus takes the trouble to deny (with a rethorical question) any blood relationship with those people, while in all other 3 cases where someone proclaims to know his true identity (demons, inhabitants of Capernaum and Peter) he did not get to deny explicitly it but only to say '' Shut up! ''.

those people are very convinced that they had found the mother and brothers of Jesus, and therefore want to have his confirmation of the fact so as to infer indirectly his humanity (and therefore his identification with the Jewish Messiah).

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

those people are very convinced that they had found the mother and brothers of Jesus, and therefore want to have his confirmation of the fact so as to infer indirectly his humanity (and therefore his identification with the Jewish Messiah).

That´s your explanation to make sense of this scene in a Marcionite gospel. This sense is not impossible.

But the sense of this scene in the canonicals is also possible (whether Jesus' "true" family is based on blood or on faith).

It seems to me that you fail to recognize that the statement of the people is easier to imagine as part of a original family-theme and not as part of a original Jesus-identity-problem. Not more. It's just a question of "easier or harder to imagine", not of possible or impossible.

[Giuseppe]

In this statement:

Thy mother and thy brethren stand without,
desiring to see thee.

is not said that his mother and brothers are ''outside'' at a given, specific point of space-time, that is, outside the tent/the crowd where is now Jesus.

It is said instead that they are ''outside'' in a unspecified point, where precisely is not known (they could be meant far thousands of miles in another town or region!).

Therefore these questioners may be simply saying the more modest observation:

''(assuming you are a human being) have you no desire to see a mother and brothers who do not see you since a long time?''

just to query if Jesus is a human being (with human parents) like everyone else.


Therefore the problem of these questioners is basically the identity of Jesus: human or alien?

But in Luke the questioners have no problem to resolve: they are only impersonal ambassadors sent by relatives (who are placed in a very specific point of space-time: separated only by a crowd from Jesus).

The problem in Luke is therefore only the problem of true relatives of Jesus: is Jesus crazy?

In both cases, Evangelion and Luke, the answer of Jesus raises a distinction between true spiritual family and false carnal family.
Therefore the family-theme is found also in Marcion.

In Marcion the ''true family'' of Jesus is true in an absolute sense because simply there are no other families of Jesus.

the marcionite antithesis is: true family of Jesus versus... ...the nothing!

In Luke the ''true family'' of Jesus is true only relatively in opposition to the Jesus's family according to flesh (who therefore maintains partially a his degree of 'verity').

the catholic antithesis: true family of Jesus versus the family of Jesus kata sarka.

Therefore Luke betrays, in my opinion, a strong need of a concrete, specifical (in space-time) family according to flesh in Luke 8:19, in order to build that catholic antithesis.

Because this lukan need, I am inclined to support Mcn priority in this case.

[Giuseppe]

So Tertullian, On the Flesh of Christ:

But as often as there is discussion of the nativity, all those who reject it as prejudging the issue concerning the verity of the flesh in Christ, claim that the Lord himself denies having been born, on the ground that he asked, Who is my mother and who are my brethren? So let Apelles too hear what answer I have already given to Marcion in that work in which I have made appeal to the Gospel which he accepts, namely that the background of that remark must be taken into consideration. Well then, in the first place no one would ever have reported to him that his mother and his brethren were standing without unless he were sure that he had a mother and brethren and that it was they whose presence he was then announcing, having either previously known them, or at least then and there made their acquaintance. This I say, in spite of the fact that the heresies have deliberately removed from the Gospel the statements that those who marvelled at his doctrine said that both Joseph the carpenter, his reputed father, and Mary his mother, and his brothers and sisters, were very well known to them. 'But,' they say, 'it was for the sake of tempting him that they announced to him the mother and the brethren whom actually he had not.' .
source: http://stephanhuller.blogspot.it/2014/1 ... s-for.html

(note that Tertullian is not satisfied by only insisting that they ''were sure that he had a mother and brethren''. He needs also to present everything as if it were an annunciation of someone exactly present there at that precise moment).


in red I put the ad hoc assumptions in Tertullian's interpretation.

Tertullian needs two things ad hoc to win against Apelles/Marcion about this point:

1) his mother and his brethren were standing without very phisically near at Jesus in that precise moment.

2) was they whose presence the evangelist was then announcing.

But neither of the two points can be derived from Evangelion, unless forced and free reading.

To stand out can mean anything: minor or major distance.
It's not an annunciation of some people being out there in wait, but only an invitation to remember the relatives, to have nostalgia for them. Un invitation to be human, to show filial and fraternal sentiments.

'But,' they say, 'it was for the sake of tempting him that they announced to him the mother and the brethren whom actually he had not.'

In this sense a temptation. But Jesus in Luke is serenely unmoved.