Introduction:
Of central importance to Apostolic Christianity is the doctrine of the sinlessness of Mary. The Catholics, Eastern, and Oriental Orthodox are in agreement on the dogma of Mary being sinless and full of grace. It is therefore imperative that scripture itself in regards to the historical Mary support their views. For if it is said that one cannot be a Christian without following an apostolic church, and yet one cannot affirm scripture without disagreeing with their dogmas then we would seem to be an impasse. If Mark the evangelist portrays Mary as sinful and as one of the disbelievers then it is certainly an issue regardless of the denomination especially if one adheres to the virgin birth.
The Relevant Narrative in Mark 3:
Then he went home, and the crowd gathered again, so that they could not even eat. And when his family heard it, they went out to seize him, for they were saying, “He is out of his mind.”
And the scribes who came down from Jerusalem were saying, “He is possessed by Beelzebul,” and “by the prince of demons he casts out the demons.” 23 And he called them to him and said to them in parables, “How can Satan cast out Satan? 24 If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. 25 And if a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand. 26 And if Satan has risen up against himself and is divided, he cannot stand, but is coming to an end. 27 But no one can enter a strong man’s house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man. Then indeed he may plunder his house.“Truly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the children of man, and whatever blasphemies they utter, 29 but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin”— 30 for they were saying, “He has an unclean spirit.”
31 And his mother and his brothers came, and standing outside they sent to him and called him. 32 And a crowd was sitting around him, and they said to him, “Your mother and your brothers are outside, seeking you.” 33 And he answered them, “Who are my mother and my brothers?” 34 And looking about at those who sat around him, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! 35 For whoever does the will of God, he is my brother and sister and mother.”
Before continuing any further, we recommend reading this short academic paper here to be able to understand the nuance of the argument. The above copy has been separated into 3 paragraphs. This is an example of a Marcan sandwich where the evangelist begins story X, interrupts with story Y, then returns and completes story X. Examples can be seen in 5:21-43, and 11:12-19. When one looks at all the examples of these Marcan sandwiches of which there are many, it becomes clear that this literary technique is a theological tool by the evangelist to further his narrative. As James Edwards explains “Mark sandwiches one passage into the middle of another with an intentional and discernible theological purpose. The technique is, to be sure, a literary technique, but its purpose is theological; that is, the sandwiches emphasize the major motifs of the Gospel, especially the meaning of faith, discipleship, bearing witness, and the dangers of apostasy”. He further notes that “the middle story nearly always provides the key to the theological purpose of the sandwich.” Thus, to analyze Mark 3:20-35 holistically, one needs to look at both narratives included, separately, and collectively. We wish to note to our readers that this is all uncontroversial. All modern commentaries on Mark, including Catholic ones recognize this literary technique (See Mary Healy’s “Catholic Commentary On Sacred Scripture”), and furthermore they all agree that the above narrative is a sandwich. If one were to remove the inclusion of the scribes’ remarks they would be left with the following episode [X-Y-X’].
X Then he went home, and the crowd gathered again, so that they could not even eat. And when his family heard it, they went out to seize him, for they were saying, “He is out of his mind”. X’ And his mother and his brothers came, and standing outside they sent to him and called him. And a crowd was sitting around him, and they said to him, “Your mother and your brothers are outside, seeking you.” And he answered them, “Who are my mother and my brothers?” And looking about at those who sat around him, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! For whoever does the will of God, he is my brother and sister and mother.”
Who went out to ‘seize’ Jesus?
Some people argue that those who went out to seize him were the apostles yet this is erroneous The neutral phrase “οἱ παρ’ αὐτοῦ” is used to denote the people arriving to seize (κρατῆσαι) Jesus and are related to the accusations of madness (Ἐξέστη’). The family has not been mentioned as of yet and if one did not have the full context and did not see the full Markan sandwich they would not know who the people calling him crazy are. Interestingly, the term is generalized meaning the whole of this group is accusing Jesus of the same thing [as will be seen]. One must not make the mistake some such as Bede make and think it is referring to the apostles as the sentence itself forbids this interpretation. If the disciples are with Jesus in the house [v. 19, 31-35], they could not ‘go out’ to seize him. Thus the identification as the family, in the light of v. 31, as ‘coming out’ from Nazareth to Capernaum in order to take control of Jesus is the clearest solution, especially seeing the positive light in which the companions are placed in right before, and after this. Thus, it must be the family as all translations understand it to be.
Who accused Jesus of going crazy?
The next difficult phrase is ‘ἔλεγον’ which denotes who was accusing Jesus of his Ἐξέστη’. Some translations translate this as “for people were saying” thus displacing the accusation to the lips of the crowd; a perplexing translation given the later contrast, and the overwhelmingly positive portrayal of the crowd everywhere else although to ensure a holistic analysis, this issue will be discussed. While many explanations for the Greek exist agreeing with us, we will present Bart Ehrman’s comments as he is the only scholar who has explained this in language easily understandable to the layman. He notes [1]:
“The word EXESTH literally means “to stand outside of oneself.” It is a phrase comparable to the English phrase “to be out of your mind.” In other words, it means “he has gone crazy.”
And so 3:21-22 can be translated “Now when his family heard these things they came out in order to seize him, for they were saying “He is out of his mind.”
Some translators don’t like that way of putting it, not because of any grammatical or lexical issues with the Greek, but simply because they can’t get their heads around Jesus’ family members thinking that he has gone crazy. And so, to avoid the problem, they sometimes change the translation – not because of what the Greek says, but because of what they think it *ought* to say. And so they translate it as saying that his family has come to take him out of the public eye because “people were saying that ‘He is beside himself.’” (Thus the RSV, for example.)
This is really taking liberties with the Greek. In Greek, the subject of a sentence is often not expressed because it can be found in the form of the verb itself. I will try to explain this simply. In English, when we write or speak a sentence that requires a pronoun (“I” “you” He” “she” “they” “Those ones” “These ones”) we actually give the pronoun. In Greek and other “inflected” languages, the pronouns are already built into the verb. So the verb is spelled differently, with a different ending, whether you want the subject to be “I” “you” “she” “we” etc. It was *possible* for Greek to use pronouns, of course, and it often does when it wants to place special emphasis on the subject. But in normal speech it was not necessary.
Now the rule is that if a sentence containing a verb does not have an explicit pronoun, and the subject within the sentence itself is ambiguous, then the implied subject (found in the ending of the verb) is the immediately preceding noun or pronoun (or other substantive). So that if you have a sentence that says “He jumped over the ditch,” you actually do not know who the “he” is unless you look in the preceding context and see, right before this sentence, something like, “James ran into the field.” Then you know that the “He” that is jumping over the ditch is James.
Apologies for the grammar lesson here, but it matters. In Mark 3:21, when it says “for they were saying” there is no noun or pronoun expressed to indicated who the “they” is. And so, by the rules of grammar, it almost certainly refers to the closest antecedent, which in this case is “those who were on his side,” i.e., his family. In other words, the ones who came to seize him were the ones saying that he is out of his mind.”
We note that there are many Catholics and Orthodox who agree with us on every point up to now. However, they then say Mary is not included. Thus, the above comments are especially crucial for the Mariology of Mark as him not using the word ‘family’ and rather simply saying ‘those who were beside him’ (which he identifies with Mary and the brothers) necessitates a careful exegete to conclude that Mary shares the same belief as his brothers. Think of one saying “They came and talked to me” and then continuing with “My mother and brothers came and talked to me”. The “they” here has to be my mother and brothers, and we cannot simply take one and leave the other. I is this parallel that can be drawn in the Markan narrative.
A Narrative approach to determining the accusers of 3:21:
We understand that for many, Greek analysis can be confusing, and perhaps due to its unfamiliarity not as convincing. Instead of just looking at the Greek however, we can actually look at all the different groups in the narrative and decide on the identity of the accusers in 3:21. The narrative includes the family, disciples, crowd, and the Pharisees. The Pharisees call Jesus demonic and are dealt with from verses 22-30. The disciples are not only mentioned with the crowd but are also already in the house with Jesus and are portrayed positively right before this. A straightforward reading of this passage very clearly juxtaposes the disbelieving family with the believing crowd. Remember, the laymen unassociated crowd is a group of people consistently portrayed as believing in Jesus. While the Pharisees oppose Jesus, the crowd understands, and accepts him. Thus, this juxtaposition is striking. The family of Jesus calls him ‘Ἐξέστη’ a term which means “insane” or “out of his mind”, similarly to Paul’s usage in 2 Corinthians 5:13 “If we are “out of our mind,” as some say, it is for God; if we are in our right mind, it is for you”. Thus, the family which is later identified as Mary and Jesus’ brothers are calling him insane; a charge based on their misunderstanding of Jesus’ mission and disbelief in him.Not only are the family of Jesus described of accusing him of ‘Ἐξέστη’, a word with clear negative undertones but they also do so by coming to ‘κρατῆσαι’ him, which comes from the word krateó which can mean to ‘take’ or ‘seize’. Of 15 instances of kratein in Mark, 11 are negative (e.g., 6:17; 12:12) and this is no different. The verb kratesai followed by a name or pronoun indicating trapping someone by coercion is used by Mark eight times for the Baptist, Jesus, and the “young man” in Gethsemane. The surrounding context, juxtaposition, and Y parallel indicates this as well as 3:31-35 which will be analyzed shortly.
3:31-35. What Happens when ‘they’ arrive?
Verses 3:31 has Mary grouped with the brothers (see “his mother and his brothers came,… they sent to him”) and so if one were to approach the text without presuppositions of the virgin birth and the inerrant character of Mary, one would conclude that just like the brothers, she is standing outside and calling for Jesus as she also believes is “out of his mind”. Mark highlights the contrastbetween the believing crowd, and the disbelieving family by noting twice that his family ‘stood outside’ (as noted by Mary Healy’s Catholic commentary on sacred scripture). The family of Jesus are not only looking for Jesus but are ‘ζητοῦσίν’ or ‘zētousin’ a word used in Mark 10 times and is consistently used negatively. It is most often related of the scribes and building on the parallels below, this word would further show the negative portrayal of the family of Jesus which directly includes Mary. In contrast to his family, the believing crowd is ‘around him’ (See v. 31, and 34). It is this crowd that believes in Jesus and it is this crowd that forms the ‘messianic family’ of Jesus as these are the ones doing the will of God. The verb used ‘to gaze around’( περιβλεψάμενος) indicates a deliberate running of the eyes through the assembly of ‘insiders’ thus excluding the outsiders which in this case is the family. The Markan Jesus thus dissociates from Mary and Jesus’ brothers. The crowd seated around him are the ones doing ‘the will of God’ and so they constitute his messianic family in exclusion of Mary and his brothers. Implicit in this, is the idea that the family of Jesus is much like the scribes [see below] in thatthey go against the will of God and thus are sinful disbelievers and share in their rejection of the messiah. Later, we will note the backdrop through which the family has been introduced.
The Pharisees and their role in this passage:
The X narratives of the Markan sandwich have been analyzed independently, and so the next part of the analysis will focus on the Y episode inserted in the middle of the Markan sandwich. The passage is repeated below:
And the scribes who came down from Jerusalem were saying, “He is possessed by Beelzebul,” and “by the prince of demons he casts out the demons.” 23 And he called them to him and said to them in parables, “How can Satan cast out Satan? 24 If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. 25 And if a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand. 26 And if Satan has risen up against himself and is divided, he cannot stand, but is coming to an end. 27 But no one can enter a strong man’s house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man. Then indeed he may plunder his house.“Truly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the children of man, and whatever blasphemies they utter, 29 but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin”— 30 for they were saying, “He has an unclean spirit.”
As previously mentioned, a Markan sandwich is best seen as an [X-Y-X’] sequence where the X scenes follow from each other and are understandable together while the Y scene sheds light on the motif, and meaning of the overarching narrative. Thus, the inclusion of the scribes’ unbelief, and accusation of Jesus’ demonic origins within the narrative of the family of Jesus calling him insane suggest a direct parallel in their misrepresentation, and negative portrayal of him (Cf. John 10:20 “Many of them [Jews] said, “He has a demon, and is insane; why listen to him?”. As Jesus responds to the scribes so does he respond to his family which although they are learned (Scribes with the law, family with Jesus) they nevertheless do not accept Jesus. It is only the ‘insiders’, the laymen crowd that understand and accept Jesus. The pharisees themselves are constantly portrayed as hypocrites who disbelieve in Jesus and to parallel them with the family’s accusations where both try to ‘ζητοῦσίν’ (zētousin) Jesus makes it clear that the family is more than simply confused. They are disbelieving in his message much as Paul’s opponents disbelieved in his gospel when calling him ‘Ἐξέστη’. A neutral observer reading this text will have to include Mary in this group of disbelievers. Further proof will be made in support of this position although it is important to note that the burden of proof is on those who, burdened by their own presuppositions, make the positive claim that Mary is not included in this characterization of unbelief. To avert Jesus from his mission is satanic. Thus, Mary and the brothers’ attempt at ‘seizing’ him is as bad as the Pharisees directly disbelieving in him. This is the point of Jesus’ rebuke when Peter tries to prevent him from going to the cross. “Get behind me, Satan, for you do not understand the things of God but only the ways of man” (8:33).How much worse must it be then for Mary to be actively trying to stop him from his mission and preaching in the midst of the believing crowds?
The Outsiders of Mark 4:
It was previously noted how Mark stresses Mary and the brothers as being ‘outside’ in contrast to the disciples, and the crowd who were ‘inside’ [Cf. 31-32/32-34]. Most exegetes note the contrast, and adequately assign to it the idea that it is the crowd, and the disciples which believe in Jesus not the family standing outside. Most however, in an attempt to minimize the impact of this do not adequately discuss its links to Mark 4 where Jesus makes a distinction between the ones on the ‘inside’ who are given access to the ‘mystery of the kingdom of God’ whereas to the ones on the outside who are ‘ἔξω’ [As the family is according to 3:31-32] Jesus simply says:
but for those outside everything comes in parables, 12 in order that ‘they may indeed look but not perceive, and may indeed hear but not understand; so that they may not turn again and be forgiven.’ ” [4:11-12 NRSVUE]
We note that the other versions of the parable of the sower in the other gospels do not have the insider-outsider contrast and as such this is a specific editorial feature in Mark’s gospel. To explain the state of the the outsiders who are ‘ἔξω’ Jesus quotes Isaiah 6:9-10. The following exegesis is taken from Mary Healy’s ‘Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture’: “In the context of the passage, God forewarns Isaiah that he would be called to preach judgment to Israel at a time when the people were mired in sin and injustice, and so his message would meet with stubborn resistance. The forceful language does not mean that God himself will block the people’s ears and eyes. Rather, the prophet’s message will cause the people to blind and deafen themselves to avoid hearing it, in order to persist in their rebellion. Jesus, likewise, is addressing a wayward generation, many of whom will harden themselves to avoid grasping the implications of his words. His parables, by their hidden depths veiled in simplicity, will cause a separation by the response they evoke in listeners’ hearts. For those who ponder the parables with sincere openness, the mystery of the kingdom will be gradually unveiled. But for those who prefer to persist in their own rebellious ways, the parables will remain opaque: so that they may look and see but not perceive, and hear and listen but not understand. Their obstinacy hinders them from attaining the goal of all Jesus’ teaching: that they be converted and be forgiven.”
Interestingly enough Jesus explains this to the disciples, and the privy few. The large crowd is not around to hear the distinctions being made thus if this chapter continues from the previous one, and the family of Jesus was following the larger crowd, they would be left out of this inner circle of companionship, and knowledge. As shown in the above excerpt from Healy this ‘ἔξω’ group is, according to the prophetic word of Isaiah a disbelieving group who do not perceive the truth, much less understand it. It is thus no coincidence that Mark specifically labels the family of Jesus (Including Mary) as part of this very group while comparing them to the Pharisees, and contrasting them with the believing crowd. Again, a neutral exegete would have to characterize the “οἱ παρ’ αὐτοῦ” who are Mary and his brothers standing ‘ἔξω’ as disbelievers who neither perceive of, nor understand the truth of Jesus and his mission.
The Parable of the Sower
Confirmation of Mark’s emphasis:
The next passage to be analyzed is the only other direct reference to all of Jesus’ family. The passage begins:
He left that place and came to his hometown, and his disciples followed him. On the Sabbath he began to teach in the synagogue, and many who heard him were astounded. They said, “Where did this man get all this? What is this wisdom that has been given to him? What deeds of power are being done by his hands! Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him. Then Jesus said to them, “Prophets are not without honor, except in their hometown and among their own kin and in their own house [Mark 6:1-4 NRSV].”
Jesus has arrived in his hometown and as he begins teaching, the crowd is in wonder and expresses concern and confusion about the origin of the doctrines Jesus taught. The members of his family [house] are identified and Jesus claims that he is without honor both in his hometown, and among his own household. Later:
“And he could do no deed of power there, except that he laid his hands on a few sick people and cured them. And he was amazed at their unbelief [Mark 6:5-6 NRSV]”.
We know this is Mark’s editing as we have a parallel of this saying in all 4 gospels. See Table 1 below.
Table 1
John, Luke, and Matthew alter the first part of the passage. Interestingly enough In John the saying precedes an account of Jesus being welcomed in Galilee and seems to be in a different context. He does not mention the original context of the saying thus detaching us from the historical episode. A clear reading of the relevant passage indicates that those who knew Jesus best including his whole family did not believe in him. As with the previous passages, there is no reason to not include Mary in this state of unbelief unless one presupposes a specific worldview. Some will allege that this accusation of unbelief does not have to include the Blessed Virgin Mary. In response, one must simply observe the parallels to Matthew and Luke. Luke gives a general statement of the hometown rejecting Jesus. One does not even have to include any of Jesus’ family members. Matthew however states that those in his own house did not believe in him. This is a general statement that indicates his household was against his mission at this point. Interestingly enough, the members of his household are noted and along with the Virgin Mary, are the brothers and sisters of Jesus. If one did not approach the text with a presupposition in the virgin birth they would most naturally include Mary in the list of unbelievers which then raises massive issues for the Christian conception of the virgin birth in regards to her sinlessness, and birth experience among other things. However, if a confessional Christian were to say this refers to the brothers and sisters of Jesus and is a general statement one can choose to accept that for the sake of argument and instead point to Mark.
Mark further adds the word “kin” to hometown and house. Kin most naturally referring to brothers and sisters makes it clear that Mark here seems to be delineating this sequence of events very carefully. He informs us that not only did the hometown Jews disbelieve, but so did his brothers, sisters, and his house. The members of the 3rd category “house” would then necessarily have to be his relatives outside of his brothers, and sisters. We are thus left with the inevitable conclusion that Mark believes Mary to be a disbeliever in Christ’s mission. Even if one were to ignore all the textual evidence, and say it is in reference to Joseph, this would still be odd in light of the infancy narratives and Jesus being called “Son of Mary” here indicates Joseph is nowhere to be found and is most probably dead. There is no reason to separate ‘kin’ from ‘house’ if they are denoting the same group, especially if the whole ‘house’ of Jesus has been listed in the verse before. See Mark 6:3 NRSVUE where it is stated “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?”. Thus, Mark’s Mariology is abhorrent to both the Christians and the Muslims. Mark’s version of this story is the most specific, and no matter how one wishes to spin it, it is quite clear that his addition of kin, and house indicates more than simply a broad statement and is indicating total disbelief.
Summary:
Summarily, we have analyzed the Markan sandwich (3:20-35) and shown how it parallels the family of Jesus with the unbelieving scribes with the inclusion of Mary. We have seen how, contrary to certain confessional exegetes, a deep study of the related narrative clearly portrays her as one of the unbelieving ‘outsiders’ whom Jesus dissociates from for not doing the word of God. As part of the ‘outsiders’ she is also one of those who “may indeed look but not perceive, and may indeed hear but not understand” further solidifying the notion of her disbelief. Mark 6, with the addition of ‘kin’ and ‘house’ dishonoring Jesus right after she is mentioned, only serves to further support this idea. The question is, how has Christianity not spotted this from the beginning? The answer will be given now.
Part 2: Matthew and Luke’s Damage Control
Evidently, Matthew and Luke have very high Mariology and discussing it fully is outside the scope of this article. For now, it is important to note that Matthew and Luke also contain the passages previously analyzed, albeit in an altered fashion. We assume the priority of Mark meaning that Matthew and Luke came later and had access to Mark’s Gospel. While this goes against traditionalist claims it is the consensus of modern academia and we will be arguing this in a separate passage. Beginning with Matthew, we read his account of the family gathering outside:
46 While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. 47 Someone told him, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.” 48 He replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?”49 Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers.50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”
Looking at this passage, one notices multiple things. First, the Markan sandwich has been broken. No longer is the family paralleled with the Pharisees. No longer is his family calling him Ἐξέστη’. They are not trying to seize him but are merely attempting to speak to him. Unlike in the Markan version, he does not ‘περιβλεψάμενος’ at the crowd but points at the disciples and calls them his mother and brothers before generalizing on the idea of doing the will of the Father in heaven. It is abundantly clear here that Jesus does not disassociate from his family. If one were to hold to this, they would have to explain why the Matthean Jesus is disassociating from the believing crowd who are portrayed in stark contrast to the Pharisees and evidently accept and love Jesus. Rather, the Matthean Jesus is giving a general teaching which does not necessarily exclude his mother and brothers. This is in direct contrast to the Markan version of these events which explicitly distinguishes Jesus’ family from the ‘inside’ believers. Furthermore, the characterisation of the crowd as being ‘around him (inside)’ is removed and thus another layer of contrast has been eliminated. Additionally, even though Matthew has kept the ‘outsiders’ description it does not have the same impact as it does in Mark as is evidently clear from his recounting of the Parable of the Sower which goes as follows:
10 The disciples came to him and asked, “Why do you speak to the people in parables?”11 He replied, “Because the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. 12 Whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them. 13 This is why I speak to them in parables:
This is in reference to the large crowds gathered around him. Evidently, they were not all disbelievers and so this is a general precept. Matthew does not have Jesus saying “but for those outside everything comes in parables [4:10-11 NRSVUE]” which means the reader does not end up concluding that Mary was a disbeliever. If one did not have access to the full Markan account one could not naturally conclude that Mary and the brothers disbelieved from these select passages. In fact, the omission of ‘those who are outside’ as the label for the confused, disbelieving group would point to quite the opposite and that Mary and the brothers are generally just concerned for Jesus. The parallel to Mark 6 is found in Table 1. Jesus here omits the word ‘kin’ and limits it to the ‘hometown’ and ‘house’. Traditionally, this has been seen as a proof-text for the rejection of Jesus by his brothers and not by his mother. In light of the infancy narrative of Matthew, the general nature of the statement, and Matthew’s re-arranging of the Markan story this exegesis may be viable although individuals who do not appreciate the previous discussion on the Markan parallel would have to wonder why Mark adds the ‘kin’ if he truly does not think Mary dishonors Jesus.
These above ideas are heavily accentuated in the Lukan account. The evangelist not only disconnects this from the Pharisaic statements but actually removes it completely. The account of the mother and brothers is toned down even more than in Matthew. The passage is as follows:
19 Then his mother and his brothers came to him, but they could not reach him because of the crowd. 20 And he was told, “Your mother and your brothers are standing outside, wanting to see you.” 21 But he said to them, “My mother and my brothers are those who hear the word of God and do it.”
His mother has already been introduced beforehand in the infancy narratives (see P3) and she is no longer going to ‘seize’ him nor is there a repetition of them being ‘outsiders’. A reader of Luke’s gospel is simply going to believe she is outside wanting to talk to him. There are absolutely 0 negative undertones here, which is consistent with Luke’s high Mariology. A cursory look at the parable of the sower confirms that the idea of being ‘outside’ in Luke is not even an issue for belief or disbelief as he simply says ‘to others’ where Mark says ‘to those on the outside’. Furthermore, looking back at Table 1 we see Luke has the saying in Mark 6:4 however he does not include the ‘kin’ or the ‘house’ statements. Rather, it is a blanket statement of the rejection of Jesus by those in his town. It does not even have to include his brothers unless one assumes a priori that they are disbelievers.
Conclusion:
We have analyzed specific passages related to Mary, and Jesus’ family in Mark. We have noted that Matthew, and Luke tone down the negativity significantly and this is consistent with their Mariology. Note, that Mark does not even include a virgin birth. Some Christians will accuse us of assuming disunity whereas their Church Fathers ‘rightfully’ assumed a harmonization. This is ad hoc, and our identification of specific editorial choices is more than enough to demand an explanation. It is not enough to say that Matthew or Luke would disagree as some Church Fathers, and Catholics have claimed. Additionally, an upcoming video of ours is going to specifically argue that editorial changes are a result of correction, rather than harmonization. The channel will be linked here.
We ask the Catholic, and Orthodox to reconsider Mark in light of our research. How can Mark be inspired when it is presenting clear nasb [Hatred for the family of the prophet] and even needs to be toned down by future gospels? Why are there so many linguistic, and thematic pointers for her being sinful if Mark believed in her sinlessness? The traditional view simply does not make sense of the data.
[1] https://ehrmanblog.org/does-marks-gospel-implicitly-deny-the-virgin-birth/
