I’ve been reading some of Dr. Ehrman’s work on the Historical Jesus and the interpretation of the New Testament. In Lecture 19 of his Great Courses+ series, The Historical Jesus, he states:
Early in his ministry, according to our first account, Jesus’ family tried to seize him from the public eye because they thought he had gone mad (Mark 3:21)…
Here is the referenced text in the NRSV:
When his family heard it, they went out to restrain him, for people were saying, “He has gone out of his mind.”
New Revised Standard Version: Updated Edition (Friendship Press, 2021), Mk 3:21.
Notice that this text does not explicitly state that Jesus’ family thought or were saying that Jesus had gone out of his mind. Rather, it says that “people” were saying this. Furthermore, the text says that the reason Jesus’ family went to restrain him is because these other people were saying this.
However, in several other versions of the Bible (CJB, ESV, NASB), it says “they” instead of “people”, suggesting that Jesus’ family were saying that he had gone out of his mind.
What do you make of this?
In the Greek there is no stated subject in the clause, just a third person plural verb. I’d think that means the last stated third person plural subject (i.e., Jesus’ family) or at least some recently mentioned plural noun would be understood as the subject–not some other random group of people–, but my knowledge of Greek idiom isn’t good enough for that to me more than a guess.
Porphyry said
In the Greek there is no stated subject in the clause, just a third person plural verb. I’d think that means the last stated third person plural subject (i.e., Jesus’ family) or at least some recently mentioned plural noun would be understood as the subject–not some other random group of people–, but my knowledge of Greek idiom isn’t good enough for that to me more than a guess.
I believe the subject of the verse is “those belonging to him”, an idiom usually referring to family, and the clause almost certainly relates back to that idiomatic subject.
So I think Bart’s interpretation is the best one.
The wiggle room in the passage’s Greek is often relied upon to avoid the problem of Jesus’ family thinking he’s nuts.
But, in Mark, in my view, they do indeed think exactly that.
The fingerprints of Jesus’ prickly relationship with his family is all over the NT. When the young Jesus stayed behind and was found by his family talking to the scholars and priests in the Temple, saying, “How could you treat us like this?” he answered, “Didn’t you know I’d be in my Father’s house?” That was a jibe at Joseph, who wasn’t his father, and he was telling them what his real work was. That his family thought him crazy isn’t unusual – he was proclaiming things that were prophetic or saying he knew the correct interpretation of the Torah, but without Temple training, without a diploma of today. This happens all the time with artists and writers, the family thinks their nuts until they succeed. When his family comes to see him, they’re outside and he’s preaching inside a house, he says, “You who are listening to me are my family.” (paraphrasing) He tells followers that they have to leave their families to follow him. This is the core Jesus, there are no family values, there is only his mission, and who are going along with him.
wrouthier said
The fingerprints of Jesus’ prickly relationship with his family is all over the NT. When the young Jesus stayed behind and was found by his family talking to the scholars and priests in the Temple, saying, “How could you treat us like this?” he answered, “Didn’t you know I’d be in my Father’s house?” That was a jibe at Joseph, who wasn’t his father, and he was telling them what his real work was. That his family thought him crazy isn’t unusual – he was proclaiming things that were prophetic or saying he knew the correct interpretation of the Torah, but without Temple training, without a diploma of today. This happens all the time with artists and writers, the family thinks their nuts until they succeed. When his family comes to see him, they’re outside and he’s preaching inside a house, he says, “You who are listening to me are my family.” (paraphrasing) He tells followers that they have to leave their families to follow him. This is the core Jesus, there are no family values, there is only his mission, and who are going along with him.
Perhaps even more in point is Jesus’ complaint in Mark 6 that he gets no respect even in his own home.
Well, duh. Of course he doesn’t.
THEY THINK HE’S FRICKIN’ NUTS!!!
Sorry. The Sam Kinison side of me suddenly reared its ugly head.
Porphyry said
I don’t know his name, but the guy who does the lectures for center place in Toronto suspects the author of mark had a problem with James the just, and tried to discredit him whenever he can–this being one example.
It is more than that. Mark is a polemic against Jesus’ inner circle — his family and and closest disciples. His family doesn’t follow him, doesn’t respect him and thinks he’s nuts. His disciples don’t understand his mission, lack faith, vie for status, deny him, and so on. The text should be read in this light.
On a related note, Jesus is later rejected in hometown* and repeats the well-known aphorism that “[p]rophets are not without honor except in their hometown, and among their own kin, and in their own house.'” Mark 6:4 (NRSV). It then goes on to say that “he could do no deeds of power there” except for some minor healing. Mark 6:5 My sense is that, in Mark, his power is limited by the lack of faith of those surrounding him at the time. Of course, an alternate explanation is that the illness could not be healed, or the demon driven out, unless the afflicted person had faith in Jesus. The latter interpretation fits with the incident of the woman healed by surreptitiously grasping the hem of Jesus’ cloak: “Daughter, your faith has made you well.” Mark 5:25-34.
* The text clearly says “hometown” and does not mention a specific place by name, yet the heading says “The Rejection of Jesus at Nazareth.” I am not aware of anything in Mark to indicate Nazareth as Jesus’ hometown. Did these headings (along with the chapter and verse breaks) first show up with the KJV? I asked Dr. E about the general subject and he indicated it was worthy of a post from him, but he hasn’t done a post on it so far. Any opinions?
** The corresponding portion of Matthew (Matthew 13:64-58) simply says that Jesus did not do deeds of power there, implying that it was his choice. Luke changes the story and has the public driving Jesus out of town. It says nothing about miraculous acts or deeds of power. Luke 4:16-30.
Not as a matter of great significance, The Tyndale and several earlier English Bibles give chapter numbers, but not verse numbers. The 1611 King James Bible gives both chapter and verse numbers. The Geneva Bible of 1560 also gives both chapter and verse numbers. The 1611 King James Bible has multi-line chapter titles, as does the earlier Geneva Bible. The King James says as the first line “Christ is contemned of his countreymen” (original spelling). The Geneva Bible has “How Christ and his are received in their owne countrey.”
Robert said
TTHorne56 said
On a related note, Jesus is later rejected in hometown* and repeats the well-known aphorism that “[p]rophets are not without honor except in their hometown, and among their own kin, and in their own house.'” …
* The text clearly says “hometown” and does not mention a specific place by name, yet the heading says “The Rejection of Jesus at Nazareth.” I am not aware of anything in Mark to indicate Nazareth as Jesus’ hometown.
I presume you’re only speaking of the text of Mark 6,1-6a not mentioning Nazareth by name, because elsewhere (1,9.24 10,47 14,67 16,7) Mark several times speaks of Jesus coming from Nazareth or being of Nazareth. The reader can only imagine that Jesus’ hometown (6,1.4 πατρίς) must be Nazareth.
Thank you for your kind attempt to salvage what I said into something sensible, but I’m afraid my brain took a vacation when writing that howler. I’ll just have to own that error.
Robert said
CEJ said
It is more than that. Mark is a polemic against Jesus’ inner circle — his family and and closest disciples. His family doesn’t follow him, doesn’t respect him and thinks he’s nuts. His disciples don’t understand his mission, lack faith, vie for status, deny him, and so on. The text should be read in this light.
There’s certainly something like that going on here. It’s not a complete rejection of the earlier, Jewish disciples since they did follow Jesus and recognize him as the Messiah, but they did not fully understand his significance, perhaps also failing to grasp the extent or the success of the gentile mission? That’s my best guess at the moment. What do you think?
I’m coming around to that view. Previously, I’d thought the rejection of Jesus by his family was pretty historically certain, in light of dissimilarity. But if we think in terms of a fractured early Christianity, in which the author of Mark is not aligned with the more Judaizing element of the Jerusalem church headed by James the Just, that argument sort of falls apart.
The fellow I mentioned earlier also suggests that the trio of Peter, James (the Great, son of Zebadee), and John, which we get in the Gospels, is the same trio we get in Paul: Peter, James (the Just, brother of Jesus), and John, but Mark replaces James the brother of Jesus with James the son of of Zebadee to diminish James the Just’s stature.
That is pretty speculative, and at the end of the day, Yakob was a pretty common name, but it is still really hard entirely to ignore the weirdness of there being two different sets of Peter, James, and John who occupy privileged places. It’s also weird how James the Just sort of comes out of nowhere to become the head of the Jerusalem Church.
The thing is, if that theory is right, then even mark, the earliest extant gospel, and the most modest, has already started freely rewriting even basic historical facts to advance his theological position.
That makes the entire project of recovering the historical Jesus really difficult. Everything, even the most trivial fact, in mark comes into doubt.
Porphyry said
That makes the entire project of recovering the historical Jesus really difficult. Everything, even the most trivial fact, in mark comes into doubt.
I do not necessarily disagree with that observation, but, as a thought experiment, ask yourself what written account might eliminate doubt.
Robert said
There’s certainly something like that going on here. It’s not a complete rejection of the earlier, Jewish disciples since they did follow Jesus and recognize him as the Messiah, but they did not fully understand his significance, perhaps also failing to grasp the extent or the success of the gentile mission? That’s my best guess at the moment. What do you think?
I think Porphyry is on the right track: It seems to me to be an effort to marginalize the Jewish Christian sects that sprouted directly from the Jerusalem church and its theology.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)