Mark’s Gospel focuses on the “good
news”[1]
(εὐαγγέλιον; 1:1; 14, 15, 8:35;
10:29; 13:10; 14:9 NRSV), and the inclusio
of verses 1 and 15 demonstrate its close relation to “the kingdom of God” (1:14-15)
in Mark.[2] This paper will seek to examine the Markan view
of kinship in relation to “kingdom.” I
propose that Jesus is teaching about an in-breaking kingdom that reorients
biological relationships and emphasizes a God-oriented fictive kinship in Mark
3:20-35 and 6:1-6. However, Mark is not suggesting
dissolution of traditional family, but rather a reordering of priorities in view
of God’s kingdom. By “family” this paper
indicates kinship through blood relationships, adoption, and marriage.[3]
The first section will survey the portrayal of family in Mark over against NT
witnesses.
In contrast to Matthew, Luke, and John, Jesus’ family in Mark is, at
best, indifferent (3:20-21, 31-35; 6:1-6; 13:12).[4]
Matthew and Luke include narrative
dependent genealogies (Mt 1:1-17; Lk 3:23-28) tracing Jesus’ ancestry through
Mary and Joseph. The birth narratives,
likewise, confirm positive images of Jesus’ parents (Mt 1:18-2:23; Lk 2:1-40). In Luke, Mary “found favor with God” (Lk 1:30)
and Joseph’s ancestry plays an integral prophetic role (Lk 2:4-5). John’s Gospel suggests Mary’s function at Cana
is positive (Jn 2:1-12) and that Jesus deeply regarded his mother (Jn
19:25-27). Furthermore, Acts affirms
Jesus’ family by presenting their responsibility in the Jerusalem mission optimistically
(Acts 1:14). Paul preserves two affirmative
traditions concerning “the Lord’s brothers” (1 Cor 9:5) and “James” (1 Cor
15:7). However, Mark speaks of Jesus’
family explicitly, only, twice (3:20-35; 6:1-6).
Mark 6:1-6 is located within Jesus’
“hometown” (πατρίς; 6:1).[5]
“Many”
(πολύς) from Jesus’ “hometown”
call his message into question by mentioning Jesus’ profession as a “carpenter”
(τέκτων)[6]
and relationship to his mother and siblings (6:3). Jesus’ hometown finds his
message incredulous due to his origin and status. Interestingly, Mark
insinuates that these claims also come from Jesus’ family (6:4).[7]
Familial opposition in Mark 6:1-6 helps make sense of 3:20-35, and the negative
portrayal of Jesus’ family. A common thread between the two pericopae is
rejection of Jesus’ power (3:22; 6:2), message (3:21; 6:2), and origin (3:22;
6:3). Jesus’ family’s condemns Jesus’ message, and 3:21, consequently, is an
attempt to protect any remaining honor of the family numen.[8]
Mark 3:20-35 is an interconnected pericope
through intercalation. This technique “sandwiches” a story between another
apparently unrelated one.[9]
In this pericope, Mark inserts the Beelzebul controversy (3:22-30) between
verses 20-21 and 31-35.[10]
The force of this technique creates a
corollary between stories with each helping interpret the other, while making
“an entirely new point.”[11]
Mark, through intercalation, appears
to portray Jesus’ relationship with his family negatively. In connection with the Beelzebul controversy, Mark
is contrasting the family’s charge, “He has gone out of his mind”[12]
(3:21), with the scribes accusation, “He has Beelzebul” (3:22).[13] Whereas Jesus’ family seeks to possess him (3:21),[14]
the scribes consider him “possessed” (3:22).[15]
Mark aligns Jesus’ family with the
scribes,[16] who
attribute Jesus’ mission to Satan’s power (3:29-30).[17]
Later scribes,[18]
likely uncomfortable with Mark’s negative portrayal of Jesus’ family, alter οἱ παρʼ
αὐτοῦ (3:21) to identify the accusation of
madness to the scribes in verse 23.[19]
Matthew and Luke (Mt 12:46-50; Lk 8:19-21) revise Jesus’ family’s strong words
by omitting ἔλεγον γὰρ ὅτι ἐξέστη (Mk 3:21). Additionally, Jesus’ family “sent” and
“called” (ἀπέστειλαν πρὸς αὐτὸν καλοῦντες αὐτόν; 3:31) Jesus in Mark, but only “request”[20]
to speak to him in Matthew (ζητοῦντες αὐτῷ λαλῆσαι; Mt 12:46). Luke even blames the crowd for blocking the
family’s encounter with Jesus (οὐκ
ἠδύναντο συντυχεῖν αὐτῷ διὰ τὸν ὄχλον; Lk 8:19).[21]
Scholars who reject οἱ παρʼ αὐτοῦ (3:21) as referencing
Jesus’ family translate the phrase, “associates, friends, or followers.”[22]
However, given the formation of the
intercalation and internal evidence, scholars[23]—and
translations[24]—legitimate
the association with Jesus’ family in verse 31 and translate verse 21 as
“family.”[25] Therefore, Jesus’ family, and not the crowd or
disciples, accuse Jesus of being “out of his mind!” (3:21). Why does Mark, as opposed to the NT witnesses,
create tension between Jesus and his family?
John Crossan[26]
suggests the Markan church—by not adhering to traditional practices (2:18, 24;
3:4; 7:5, 26; 12:14) and interacting with Gentiles (1:41; 2:15; 5:6)—lived in
strife with the “Jerusalem community.”[27]
Crossan, quite clairvoyantly,[28]
attempts to provide a historical bridge between an early conflict-ridden church[29]
and Mark’s community. The redaction work Crossan offers is self-admittedly
“tentative.”[30] He
charges that Mark’s community, like Paul, is warring against the “Acknowledged Pillars”
(Gal 2:9).[31] Crossan
too easily assumes provenance, dating, and a Markan conflict. Crossan’s thesis should
be questioned whether it best fits the Markan situation.[32]
James Edwards understands the
conflict in 3:20-35 in terms of discipleship. For Edwards, Mark’s intercalation displays who
is “inside and outside” of God’s kingdom.[33]
Adella Yarbro-Collins suggests that Mark
is comforting his readers whose faith is conterminously rejected by their
biological families.[34]
Perhaps Mark’s portrayal of Jesus’
family encompasses aspects of each position here, though, with an overt
emphasis on the new fictive family and Jesus’ devotion to that family. For Mark, Jesus is ducens per exemplum and does so by unabashed devotion to kingdom
over family. The intercalation creates a distinction between old/new and
family/kingdom. The Beelzebul controversy
indicates that the old kingdom is ending, while the new kingdom—although, not a
kingdom, but a family—is breaching the present world.
In 3:13-19, the twelve disciples, many who have left everything, are contrasted,
creating the perfect tension,[35]
between Jesus’ family, who desires to “take control of him,”[36]
and the scribes,[37] who
falsely accuse him. Jesus aligns his
family with the scribes. Furthermore,
the accusations from the scribes lead Jesus into a parable concerning Satan and
Satan’s kingdom (3:24). Mark’s Jesus
dismantles the scribe’s claim of demonic activity (3:23-26). Satan’s kingdom and household would
self-destruct if Jesus, in fact, “by the ruler of the demons he casts out
demons” (3:22). Interestingly, Mark’s
Beelzebul account is not attached to an individual exorcism story. Unlike Matthew and Luke,[38]
Jesus’ whole mission as an exorcist in Mark is questioned—the scribes position
Jesus in Satan’s domain and “system of evil.”[39]
Mark delineates systems as macrocosm
(“kingdom”) and microcosm (“household”). Mark casts Jesus as the “stronger one” (ἰσχυρός; 1:7)—the only candidate to
defeat the “strong one” (ἰσχυρός; 3:27),
Satan,[40]
and his minions.[41] In fact, by implication, Jesus “bound” Satan
in their first encounter (1:12-13) as evidenced by Jesus’ plundering of Satan’s
“goods”[42]
(1:21-27, 34; 3:11-12, 15). Mark likely alludes
to LXX Isa 49:24-26 and 53:12 as God’s long-awaited promise of rescue from evil
and plunder of the ἰσχυρός (LXX Isa 49:25).[43]
Therefore, Satan’s demise is not only
future oriented but also present. Jesus bound the “strong one,” and Satan’s
collapsing house (microcosm) only reinforces God’s promise of action—on the
cosmic level (macrocosm)—against evil. Jesus
warns those who might align Jesus with Satan’s collapsing kingdom (3:28-30). Jesus presents two kingdoms by which one can
align him or herself: (1) Satan’s kingdom or (2) God’s kingdom. This final section (3:28-30) allows Mark to
begin his discussion of “insiders” and “outsiders” in Mark 3:31-35.[44]
The story returns to Jesus’ family, who, upon arrival, are “outside” (ἔξω) of Jesus’ presence while the crowd is “around
him (περὶ αὐτὸν; Jesus)” (3:31). The cotext suggests to be “outside” (ἔξω) is to align oneself with the wrong
kingdom (4:11), specifically the demonic kingdom (5:10). Jesus’ response to his family (τίς ἐστιν ἡ μήτηρ μου καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοί) borders on dishonor. Jesus challenges the
traditional view of family. Family is no
longer determined by blood (3:20-21) or tradition (3:22-30) but by those associated
with God’s mission (ποιήσῃ τὸ θέλημα τοῦ θεοῦ; 3:35). How “one”[45]
orients his or her life—towards or against God’s kingdom—determines who will be
“around” Jesus or “outside.” Mark’s
Jesus challenges ancient familial ideals,[46]
but did he negatively portray all aspects of ancient family life or his own? Contrary to scholars,[47]
I think not.
Mark’s Gospel begins (1:1, 11) and
ends (9:7; 15:39) with Jesus as son, and
God implicitly as his father. If υἱοῦ θεοῦ reads originally[48]
(1:1), then the beginning of Mark is establishing Jesus’ position as “son of
God”—creating kinship between Jesus and God.[49]
In 1:11, “God” confirms (φωνή)[50]
Mark’s claim of Jesus as the “son of God.” Therefore, the family of God is one in which established
norms are not dismissed, for even divinity conforms.[51]
It is interesting, then, that some have
attributed the omission of Joseph as “father” in the familial scene of Mark (6:3)
as a challenge against traditional ideals of family, specifically Jesus’ family.[52]
In 6:3, Mark does not refer to Jesus
as “Joseph’s son,”[53]
but rather connects Jesus’ ancestry to Mary.[54]
Luke likely finds this problematic and alters
the text to read οὐχὶ υἱός ἐστιν Ἰωσὴφ οὗτος; (Lk 4:22). Joseph’s omission is conspicuous in historical
context. Greco-Roman society saw itself,
first, as a family,[55]
and secondarily, as an extension of the πόλις (Greek) and
Roman economy,[56]
which “served as a building-block…of larger political units.”[57]
Within the family, each person retained
the social status of the family and was expected to adhere to their inherited “script.”[58]
The father figure served as the paterfamilias and operated with highest
authority and legal standing.[59]
This is even more pronounced in Judaism,[60]
where the focus is set on a cohesive family unit with strong bonds between
marriage, children, and group identity.[61]
Judaism, likewise, held the father as
the source of highest authority. For
this reason, it is alarming that Jesus’ mother, brothers, and sisters—and not
Joseph—attempt to “restrain him” (3:21). However, Harvey McArthur cites numerous
occasions of matriarchal genealogical identification in Jewish and Christian
history.[62] McArthur shows that Mary’s genealogy is likely
used descriptively—and not legally—in Mark (c.f. Gen 21:9; Judg 11:1; 1 Kgs
17:17; Lk 7:12; Acts 16:1; 23:16; Gal 4:21-31). [63]
Joseph’s absence, then, neither represents Jesus’ bastardy[64]
or a denial of Jesus’ family. However, it
appears that Jesus’ mission collides with at least some family values in Mark’s
Gospel. Nonetheless, as much as Mark’s
Jesus threatens household economy,[65]
social structures,[66]
and kinship, he remained positive about family throughout Mark’s Gospel.
Mark’s Jesus has opportunities to
subvert family life, but only alters few. Jesus’ mission to the fisherman in 1:16-20
disrupts ancient family life. However, of
the seven people present,[67]
Jesus only calls four to abandon their familial unit. Moreover, when Jesus heals Simon’s
mother-in-law, Mark indicates that she began to “serve” (διακονέω; 1:30-31). Jesus did not invite her to abandon her roles
as mother, wife, sister, or mother-in-law; Mark infers quite the opposite. Furthermore, when Jesus heals the paralytic
(2:1-12), his command is to “go home”[68]
(2:11). Concluding the exorcism of the
Gerasene demoniac, Jesus instructs the man to “go home to your own people”
(5:19).[69]
In 7:10-13, Jesus warns the Pharisees
and scribes against using corban to
back out of familial obligations, and urges traditional family values. Additionally, following the Syrophoenician’s daughter’s
exorcism, the mother “returned to her house,” a restoration of family (7:30).
Jesus heals the blind man at Bethsaida and “sent him away to his home” (8:26). Furthermore, Jesus takes a traditionally
Jewish view of marriage and family (10:1-12) when perceiving sin to threaten it
(10:5). A comparison of Peter and the
rich man exemplify Mark’s position regarding family and kingdom.
A wealthy man approaches Jesus and
desires “eternal life” (10:17). Jesus
challenges him with the normative social demands of Judaism[70]
(10:18-19) and to sell everything for the poor (10:21). The man refuses this injunction (10:22). Following this episode, Jesus discusses the
difficulty of the rich entering the kingdom (10:23-27) and Peter’s responds,
“Look, we have left everything and followed you” (10:28). Jesus affirms that those who have left social
relationships, family, or possessions to follow him will be rewarded presently
and eternally (10:29-30). Interestingly, after Peter “follows” Jesus
(1:16-20) his “household” is not abandoned. Notice, Peter’s previous social relationships
remain in tact (1:29; 2:1). Therefore, it seems that Mark’s Jesus demands an
abandonment of things that hinder full incorporation into his kingdom—namely
obstructing the “will of God” (3:35). Obstructions extend from social
relationships to family, possessions, or actions.
Mark 3:20-35 and 6:1-6, then,
present Jesus as exemplar of kingdom living by his willingness to abandon all
familial relationships in exchange for “God’s will.” Jesus’ call to kingdom devotion
requires that one “be hated
by all because of my name,” however, “ the one who endures to the end will be
saved” (13:13). Mark’s negative portrayal of Jesus’ family exhibits that
even the “royal family” stands under equal scrutiny of kingdom requirements. Whatever
the historical situation, Mark’s community was met by a serious imperative to
animate Jesus’ ways of kingdom living.
Conclusively, this paper sought to
show that Mark’s Jesus never intended to function as a voice for diminishing
the ancient family model, but rather decisively taught strict devotion to God’s
kingdom. Jesus’ mission was to restructure family in light of devotion to God’s
new kingdom. Jesus did not call for all people to leave family, but did so with
discretion. Ultimate devotion to Jesus’ kingdom does not always demand
abandoning family, but only that which impedes full incorporation of God’s
mission.
[1] καθώς (1:2) gives direct context to the nature of the gospel in
relation to Jesus by drawing on comparisons to prophecies from Isaiah. With this link to the Hebrew Bible, Mark
intends to show Jesus’ “good news” is not about a new religion, but a message
with history—the history of Israel’s narrative as understood in Isaiah (1:2). Therefore, in examining the verb cognate εὐαγγελίζω in Isaiah one finds that the “gospel” is the pronouncement of
God’s coming rule and vindication of God’s people (LXX Isa 40:9; 52:7; 60:6;
61:1). This is likely the sense in
Jesus’ “proclamation of the good news of God” (vv.14-15), especially in
relation to his connection of “kingdom” and Isaiah. Not only has the time been “fulfilled” (πληρόω; perfect, passive,
indicative), but God’s sphere / kingdom
“has come near” (ἤγγικεν ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ). ἐγγίζω, as a perfect, active, indicative could indicate that the
kingdom reaches into the present world without yet being fully integrated.
[2] A case, however, can be made for this section
to separate at verse 13. Out of 583
sentences in Mark, 376 of those begin with καί. The opening unit is
no exception and helps link verses 6 (καὶ), 7 (καὶ), 9
(καὶ ἐγένετο), 10 (καὶ εὐθὺς), 11 (καὶ), 12 (καὶ εὐθὺς), and 13 (καὶ). Breaking this cycle, verse 14 begins with μετὰ δὲ, an unfamiliar and rare
transitional phrase in Mark (1:14; 16:8). If the boundary were detached from verses
14-15, then 1:1-13 would serve as the opening and verses 14-15 as a type of
summary for Jesus’ upcoming ministry (1:14-3:6). However, the inclusion of the phrase μετὰ δὲ τὸ παραδοθῆναι (v. 14) does not
designate a new literary unit, but is translated here as an antecedent
adverbial infinitive. The action of the infinitive takes place in time before the
controlling verb.
[3] Furthermore, the “household,” likewise
encompasses the previous definition of “family,” but further extends to a
larger group, including slaves, servants, and clients. Beryl Rawson, A Companion
to Families in the Greek and Roman Worlds (Chichester, West Sussex,
U.K.: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011), 221.
[4] Katrina
M. Poetker,
"Domestic Domains in the Gospel of Mark," Direction
24, no. 1 (March 1, 1995): 18.
[5] BDAG, 788, par. 1: “one’s familial
connections.” Furthermore, perhaps the
Markan narrator exhibits irony here by using the verb cognate of πατήρ—a patriarchal term—and
then fails to list Joseph, the “father.”
[6] See fn. 53.
[7] The phrase ἐν τοῖς συγγενεῦσιν αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ αὐτοῦ (emphasis mine; 6:3)
suggests a two-fold association to both “relatives” (συγγενής) and those living
within the same “household” (οἰκίᾳ):
a family. Furthermore, though the adjective συγγενής often means “related,” it is always used substantively
in the New Testament (Lk 1:58; 2:44; 14:12; 21:16; Jn 18:26; Acts 10:24; Rom
9:3; 16:7, 11, 21). BDAG, 950.
[8] David A. DeSilva, Honor, Patronage, Kinship & Purity: Unlocking New
Testament Culture (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity
Press, 2000),
172.
[9] James R. Edwards, "Markan Sandwiches the Significance of Interpolations
in Markan Narratives," NovT 31 no. 3 (1989): 193.
[10]
Notice, ἔλεγον ὅτι (v. 22) bookends 3:22-30 with ὅτι ἔλεγον (v. 30), and likewise verse 21 connects to verse
22 with ἔλεγον γὰρ ὅτι.
[11] James R. Edwards, The Gospel According to
Mark (PNTC; Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2002), 117.
[12] ἐξίστημι is most often interpreted as “amazement” or
“astonishment.” However, ἔλεγον γὰρ ὅτι
preceding the word disallows for this translation. The better translation in
this instance is likely, “to lose one’s mind.” See BDAG, 350.2.a. Furthermore, ἔλεγον γὰρ ὅτι (v. 22) and ἔλεγον ὅτι Βεελζεβοὺλ ἔχει are purposely structured symmetrically to indicate a
correlation.
[13] Ben Witherington III, The Gospel of Mark: a
Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing
Co., 2001), 153. Witherington suggests a
better reading: “He is possessed by Beelzebul.” The agency provided by the
phrase ἐν τῷ ἄρχοντι lends to this reading. Though ἐν (ἐν τῷ ἄρχοντι) does not
typically act as an agent, it seems to possess that quality in this
passage. BDAG, 329, suggests “with the
help of,” and cites precedent in Mt 9:34; Acts 17:31; 1 Cor 6:2; 14:21.
[16] Scribes are mentioned fifteen times (2:6, 16;
3:22; 7:1, 5; 9:14; 11:18, 27; 12:28, 32; 14:1, 43, 53; 15:1, 31). Mark
characterizes the scribes negatively, except for 12:34.
[17] Morna D. Hooker, The Gospel According to
Saint Mark (BNTC; London: Continuum, 1991), 115. Hooker suggests, “madness
was often regarded as due to possession by a demon.” In this light, both Jesus’
family and scribes intend to make the same charge against Jesus.
[18] Helpful discussion in, William L. Lane, The Gospel According to Mark: The English Text with
Introduction, Exposition, and Notes (Grand
Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing
Co., 1974), 138fn.75.
[19] Tampering is evidenced in the majority of Old
Latin witnesses and uncials. Additionally, notice D and W read, περι αυτου οι γραμματεις και οι λοιποι. See Eberhard Nestle et al., Universität
Münster. Institut für Neutestamentliche Textforschung, Novum Testamentum Graece, 27. Aufl., rev. (Stuttgart: Deutsche
Bibelstiftung, 1993), 97.
[21] François Bovon and Helmut Koester, Luke
1: a Commentary on the Gospel of Luke 1:1-9:50 (Hermeneia;
Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2002),
316. Bovon, correctly, asserts that Luke
intentionally sought to save the family from being outside the circle of
believers and to encourage a positive image of Mary.
[22] R. T France, The Gospel of Mark: a
Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans
Publishing Co., 2002), 166. France argues that it would be “difficult” for the
first time reader to understand that Jesus is talking about his family since no
family member is mentioned to this point. Also, see Eugene M. Boring, Mark: A
Commentary (NTL; Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006), 104 fn. b. Edwards 2002, 118; Francis J.
Moloney, The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary
(Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2002),
142. Contra France, Boring, and Moloney,
the substantivizing article (οἱ) turns the prepositional phrase (παρʼ αὐτοῦ) into the nominative subject of
ἐξῆλθον.
[23] Boring 2006, 106. Boring provides a thorough list of usage in
the LXX; Collins 2007, 226-227; Robert A. Guelich, Mark 1–8:26. Vol.
34A. (WBC; Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1998), 172; Hooker 1991, 115. Hooker
convincingly argues, “In the LXX and contemporary colloquial Greek it meant
‘relatives’ or ‘friends’”; Joel Marcus, Mark 1-8: A New Translation with
Introduction and Commentary Vol. 27 (AB; New Haven; London: Yale University
Press, 2008), 279-280; Moloney 2002, 81-82; Witherington
2001, 154.
[25] The phrase ἔλεγον in verse 21 has a
legitimate antecedent in οἱ παρʼ
αὐτοῦ and rendering it as an indefinite plural should
be dismissed (Contra NRSV, “for people were saying”).
[26] John Dominic Crossan, "Mark and
the relatives of Jesus," NovT,
15, no. 2 (April 1, 1973): 112-113.
[27] “Jerusalem” is mentioned eleven times in Mark;
two uses are neutral (1:5; 3:8), two are positive (11:1; 15:41), and seven are
negative (3:22; 7:1; 10:32, 33; 11:11, 15, 27).
[28] Crossan’s thoughts are visionary as an interest
in the area of Pauline influence on the Mark’s Gospel is being renewed. See Ian J.
Elmer, David C. Sim, and Oda Wischmeyer, Paul and Mark: Comparative Essays
Part I: Two Authors at the Beginnings of Christianity (Berlin: De Gruyter,
2014); Eve-Marie Becker, Troels Engberg-Pedersen, and Mogens Müller, Mark
and Paul: Comparative Essays Part II: For and against Pauline Influence on Mark
(Berlin: De Gruyter, 2014); Tom E. Dykstra, Mark, Canonizer of Paul (St.
Paul, MN: OCABS Press, 2012).
[31] A
major failure of Crossan is to show the James of Mark’s “inner circle” was not one
of the three “Acknowledged Pillar” in the Jerusalem community.
[32] Elizabeth
Struthers Malbon, Mark's Jesus: characterization as narrative Christology
(Waco, Tex: Baylor University Press, 2009), 95fn101. Malbon, rightfully,
asserts Crossan’s understanding of Mark’s “historical antagonism with Jesus’
biological family is over-reading the text.”
[34] Adela Yarbro-Collins and Harold W. Attridge. Mark:
A Commentary on the Gospel of Mark (Hermeneia;
Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2007),
235; David A. DeSilva, An Introduction to the New Testament: Contexts,
Methods and Ministry Formation (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press,
2004), 231.
[35] It should also be noted that 3:20-21 is in
direct relation to the negative assessment of Judas Iscariot, “who betrayed
him” in verse 19. Mark possibly prepares
his audience for a new conflict between him and his family.
[36] The term κρατέω is used when the chief priests and scribes seek to “arrest”
Jesus and kill him (14:46; cf. 5:41).
[37] Eventually it is the scribes who resolve to
put Jesus to death (8:31; 10:33; 11:18; 14:1, 43, 53; 15:1, 31).
[41] In 5:3, “no one was ever strong enough to
restrain (δέω)”
the demon possessed man, except Jesus. The
term δέω connects the story back to 3:27 where Jesus has
the strength to “bind” (δέω) the strong man, Satan.
[42]
The Markan Jesus, interestingly, shifts from two
third-class conditionals (e.g. ἐάν + μερίζω; 3:24) to a first class
conditional (εἰ) in verse 26. Due to the subjunctive use in verses 24-25,
the conversation and act lends itself to future orientation. However, the switch to a first class
conditional presents recognition of the historical past. Jesus’ past exorcist
activity is indicative of what is coming. Elizabeth E. Shively, Apocalyptic Imagination in the Gospel of Mark The Literary
and Theological Role of Mark 3:22-30 (Berlin:
De Gruyter, 2012),
48.
[44] William
Telford, The Theology of the Gospel of Mark (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1999), 126.
[45] BDAG, 725.
ὅς (3:35), the nominative subject of ποιέω, indicates the range of Jesus’ offer to others; no longer obligated
by blood, gender, or status, but by one’s ability to do “the will of God.”
[46] See fn. 66.
[48] This phrase is absent from a number of
witnesses (א
Θ 28. l 2211 pc sams;
Or), and variant readings differ. However,
the phrase remains in א1 and nearly all uncials except Θ. In either case, the same
phrase (3:11; 5:7; 15:39) and its implications appear throughout Mark’s Gospel
(1:11; 9:7; 12:6; 13:32; 14:61-62). A
feasible solution is that homoioteleuton in verses 1-3 (13x) caused scribal errors and omissions. See a fuller discussion in Bruce M. Metzger,
United Bible Societies, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament,
Second Edition a Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New
Testament (4th Rev. Ed.). (London; New York: United Bible Societies, 1994),
62.
[50] The location of the voice (ἐκ τῶν οὐρανῶν), divine passive (ἐγένετο), and likely Psalmic allusion leaves little
question to the reader that God is speaking (c.f. 9:7).
[51] Also, Mark implicitly considers God the
“father” (13:32), head of the household, who will return at an unknown time (13:35).
[52] Janice Capel Anderson and Stephen D.
Moore, Mark & Method: New Approaches in Biblical Studies (2nd ed.
Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2008),
139; Marcus
J. Borg, Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time: The Historical Jesus &
the Heart of Contemporary Faith (San Francisco,CA: Harper San Francisco,
1994), 93fn36; John Dominic Crossan, The
Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant (San
Francisco, CA: Harper San Francisco, 1991),
299-302; Elisabeth
Schüssler Fiorenza, In Memory of Her: A Feminist Theological Reconstruction
of Christian Origins (New York, NY: Crossraod, 1985), 143-145; Frederick J. Gaiser,
"Mark." WW 26, no. 1 (December 1, 2006): 23.
[53]
Although, two important textual witnesses (P45vid
33vid) eliminate any reference to Jesus as carpenter and attribute
the title to his father: (1) ουχ ουτος εστιν ο του
τεκτον ος ο υ̅ς̅ της μαριας (P45vid); (2) ουχ ουτος
εστιν ο του
τεκτονος ο υιος της μαριας (33vid).
[54] Ronald Alan Kittel, "The Mother
of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark," Living Pulpit 10, no. 4 (October
1, 2001): 10.
[55] Beryl Rawson, The Family in Ancient
Rome: New Perspectives (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1986), 125.
[57] Hans-Josef Klauck, The Religious Context of Early Christianity: A Guide to Graeco-Roman
Religions (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000), 56.
[58] Christopher Bryan, Render to
Caesar: Jesus, the Early Church, and the Roman Superpower (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2005), 12. Bryan describes “scripts” in terms of unspoken
and underlying roles adhered to by dissimilar social groups.
[59] Joel
B. Green and Lee Martin McDonald, The
World of the New Testament: Cultural, Social, and Historical Contexts
(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2013), 180.
[61] Richard S. Hess and Daniel Carroll, Family
in the Bible: Exploring Customs, Culture, and Context (Grand Rapids, MI:
Baker Academic, 2003), 17-31; 59-99.
[63] Therefore, had a formal inquisition (i.e.
census, broker, etc.) been made of Jesus, his identification would remain in
Joseph. Furthermore,
Jesus is likely identified according to Mary’s lineage because of the locale
(6:1). The crowd seems to have an insight
to the life of Jesus’ family. Perhaps,
Mary as a notable figure in the community would overshadow her since dead
husband.
[65] Rawson 2011, 127. The Roman family was considered a production
center for the whole of society. If the
family structure is disturbed, then economies are threatened.
[66] Dixon 1991, 100. Mark’s Jesus places children as the idealized
position of status in his kingdom (9:36-37; 10:13-16); women function in Jesus
ministry (15:41); access to God’s kingdom is available to all people (10:43-44).
[67] The reference is minimally to Simon, Andrew,
John, James, Zebedee, and at least two workers (pl. μισθωτός; 1:20).
[68] BDAG, 698-699: par. 2. The definition can range from a physical building
to a “household or family.” The οἶκος, in Mark, often
includes a social dimension of friends or family (5:19, 38; 7:17, 30; 8:3;
9:28).
No comments:
Post a Comment