When it comes to the Gospels, New Testament criticism is unusually rich and complex, due in large part to the nature of the Synoptic Gospels. These three Gospel versions share a common Tradition, but also contain a number of important (and sometimes unique) differences. The close similarity of the Gospels, in relation to the core Synoptic Tradition, allows us to focus on the original contribution of each Gospel writer—with the points of difference indicating how the common Tradition was shaped and adapted (by each author) in new and creative ways.
We see this most clearly in those parts of the Synoptic Gospels that represent the so-called “Triple Tradition” —that is, narrative episodes and traditions shared by all three Synoptic Gospels. In such instances, the Gospel Tradition appears to be relatively fixed, and it seems clear that the individual writers did not feel free to modify or deviate from the underlying tradition to any great extent. Even so, there are differences and points of emphasis, and these are especially significant in illustrating how the Gospel writer understood, and made use of, the tradition in shaping his narrative.
Mark 3:31-35 par
As a representative example, let us consider the brief episode recorded in Mark 3:31-35 par. It involves a short narrative that has been built up around a saying by Jesus. Many of the tradition-units in the Gospels seem to share this basic structure; over the course of time, a number of such units came to be joined together to form longer narrative segments, unified either chronologically, by thematic or “catchword” bonding, or by other factors. The episode in Mark 3:31-35 is part of the wider narrative section of 3:20-35.
Before proceeding, I should mention the important critical theory that is commonly applied to study of the Synoptic Gospels. It is widely accepted proposition that Mark’s Gospel is the earliest of the three, and that Matthew and Luke each made use of the Markan Gospel, adapting it in their own ways. This is referred to as the “Markan Priority Hypothesis”, and is related to the so-called “Two-Document Hypothesis” (which holds that Matthew and Luke each made use of both Mark and a source designated as “Q”).
While the “Markan Priority” hypothesis is not without its problems, there is enough that speaks in favor of it to warrant utilizing it as a working model for studying the development of the Gospel Tradition. According to this approach, the Markan version is regarded as (more or less) representing the core Synoptic tradition, often simpler or more ‘primitive’ in form, which the Matthean and Lukan versions adapted in their distinctive ways. This is the approach I took in the earlier series “Jesus and the Gospel Tradition”, and I will use it here in these studies as well.
The Context of Mk 3:20-35
This section follows directly after the calling of the Twelve (Apostles) by Jesus (3:13-19). In the Markan narrative this provides a clear and distinct contrast between Jesus’ relatives (his natural family) and his followers (his true/spiritual family). Two episodes are brought together in this section—verses 20-21 and 31-35, respectively. In the middle of these we find the “Beelzebul controversy” (vv. 22-30), a (hostile) encounter between Jesus and certain ‘experts’ on Scripture (the Law/Torah) who have come down from Jerusalem to see him. This controversy scene centers on the healing miracles performed by Jesus (cf. the immediate context of verses 7-12 & 15), which involved the exorcism (casting out) of the (semi-)divine beings (daimons), or spirits, understood as being responsible for many diseases and ailments.
According to the monotheistic view of Israelites and Jews, true deity only existed in God the Father (El/Yahweh [YHWH]). As a natural consequence, all other ‘lesser’ deities, recognized by the surrounding nations, were relegated to the position of evil spirits. The famous Canaanite deity of Baal (i.e. the “Lord/Master”, Haddu), so well-known from ancient tradition, was fittingly viewed as the “Prince” of these daimons (or “demons”). This designation was preserved in the Gospels, transliterated in Greek as Beelzeboúl (“Baal-Zebul, originally “Baal [the] Exalted [One]”).
The thematic connection between the Beelzebul episode and verses 20-21 is important to note. Consider the sequence of events narrated in these two verses:
-
- A crowd of followers has gathered around Jesus at the house where he was residing (v. 19b-20). No doubt this was due to the many healing miracles he had been performing (vv. 7-12).
- Certain friends/relatives/acquaintances of Jesus (lit. “the ones alongside [of] him”), hearing about the miracles, and, it would seem, shocked by the sensation caused by his ministry, respond dramatically (v. 21):
(a) they went out to “grasp hold” of him (i.e. seize him)
(b) they declared “he stands out of (himself)”, i.e. is “out of his mind”
To cite a modern parallel, Jesus’ relatives and/or acquaintances wish to have him taken into custody (committed) on the grounds of insanity. In the ancient world, such “madness” was typically seen as being caused by the presence of divine beings/spirits (daimons, or “demons”). This was essentially the claim made by the religious experts in verses 22ff—that Jesus “holds Baal-Zebul”, and so performs healing miracles through the power of “the prince of demons”. Jesus’ response in verses 23-27 takes the form of a parable, illustrating the practical impossibility of such a claim. This leads into the famous saying on the Holy Spirit in vv. 28-29. The Gospel writer makes the connection clear by the explanation in verse 30—the religious leaders claimed that Jesus worked miracles through a demon-spirit rather than the Holy Spirit of God. This fundamental lack of understanding regarding Jesus’ ministry provides the setting for the episode in verses 31-35.
The Episode in 3:31-35
Here, Jesus’ mother and brothers are mentioned (also his sisters in certain versions of v. 32), creating a more specific and detailed situation than that of vv. 20-21. This also establishes a more direct contrast—between Jesus’ natural family and his true family (of followers/believers). The contrast is clear enough by the repeating elements of the verses in sequence:
There is a possible play on words in v. 31, where it is said that Jesus’ mother and brothers were “standing outside” (éxœ st¢¡kontes), i.e. outside of the house/room where Jesus and his followers were gathered. Etymologically, this expression is related to the verb used in v. 21, where Jesus’ relatives declare that “he stands out of (himself)” (exést¢); on this, see above. Note that this passage also contains certain vocabulary that alludes back to the calling of the Twelve in vv. 13-19:
-
- In vv. 13-14, Jesus calls the Twelve toward [proskaleítai] him, and they come toward [pros] him, so that he might send them forth [apostéll¢] as his representatives (i.e. apostles)
- Jesus’ mother and brothers come to him, and send forth [apésteilan] messengers toward [pros] him, calling [kaloúntes] him (v. 31)
- In v. 14, Jesus makes [vb. poiéœ] the Twelve to be his close followers, to be with him (i.e. as his true family)
- The context in v. 15 of Jesus and the Twelve casting out daimons (vb. ekbállœ)
- In vv. 13-14, Jesus calls the Twelve toward [proskaleítai] him, and they come toward [pros] him, so that he might send them forth [apostéll¢] as his representatives (i.e. apostles)
All of these parallels serve to emphasize the contrast established between Jesus’ natural family, and the true family made up of his faithful followers (disciples). The subsequent passage, the parable of the Sower and its explanation (4:1-9, 10-20), confirms this point. In verse 11 Jesus’ disciples are contrasted with “the ones outside [éxœ]”, just as his mother/brothers are “standing outside [éxœ]” the room where Jesus and his disciples are gathered.
The Tradition in Matthew and Luke
As we shall see, the Gospels of Matthew and Luke have each handled this episode in a different way, both adapting the core tradition and expanding the narrative with other traditional material. One point in common is that neither Matthew or Luke includes anything corresponding to Mk 3:20-21. There are two possibilities; either (a) both Gospels have omitted it from Mark (or a similar Synoptic source), or (b) Mark has added the verses to the core Synoptic tradition. In either case, the Matthean and Lukan narratives omit any reference to actual hostility by Jesus’ natural family toward his ministry in this scene. This reflects a general tendency within the Gospel Tradition to downplay or eliminate details which cast Jesus’ family members in a negative light.
Matthew 12:46-50
Matthew’s version has a very different setting. Not only is the scene from Mk 3:20-21 absent, but the “Beelzebul controversy” episode (12:22-32) is kept separate from the scene contrasting Jesus’ natural and true family (12:46-50). This is the result of the ‘insertion’ of three sections of teaching (vv. 33-37, 38-42, 43-45) in between. The last two sections are part of the so-called “Q” material, found also in Luke, in a slightly different location and order (Lk 11:29-32, 24-26).
Overall, the inclusion of vv. 22-45 makes the section function as a condemnation of the faithlessness and wickedness of the Age—including the cities and towns (of Galilee) in which Jesus has been preaching and working miracles. This narrative block begins with verses 15-21, and the Scripture citation of Isaiah 42:1-4 (vv. 18-21), which holds a similar place in Matthew’s narrative as does the citation of Isa 61:1 in Luke 4:17-21. Many people have not responded as they should to God’s Chosen One, who has been marked (and anointed) by the Spirit. It is by the Spirit of God that Jesus works miracles and casts out demons (12:28). This emphasis in v. 28 is one of the Matthean additions (Q material, cf. Lk 11:20) to the core Synoptic tradition, along with verses 22-23 and 30. They also give the section a stronger eschatological orientation—i.e., Jesus’ miracles are a sign that the Kingdom of God has come.
We can see how these additions, along with their distinctive emphasis, has modified the sense of the episode in verses 46-50 as well. There is the same contrast as in Mark—Jesus’ natural family vs. his true/spiritual family—but it yields a different implication in the Matthean context. The idea seems to be that not even Jesus’ own (natural) family will escape the Judgment, on the basis of their family ties; rather, only those who follow him faithfully (to the end) will be saved. There is an echo of this teaching (with a similar contrast) earlier in 10:34-39, and it is almost certainly implied in vv. 46-50 as well. Matthew’s version of the scene is presented in a more public, dramatic fashion; note some key differences (compared with Mark’s version):
-
- Jesus is speaking to the crowd (v. 46a); this serves to join the narrative to the ‘inserted’ blocks of teaching in vv. 33-45.
- It is narrated specifically that Jesus’ mother and brothers were seeking him out to speak with him (v. 46b).
- The double use of the pronoun tis (“who”) in Jesus’ rhetorical question (v. 48) gives it a more solemn, formal sound.
- Jesus delivers an emphatic gesture—stretching out his hand to those around him (v. 49, Mk has “looking around”). The gesture is also directed specifically toward his disciples.
- In the final declaration (v. 50) Jesus uses “My Father (in the heavens)” instead of “God”; this gives added emphasis to the family aspect of the scene (cp. Lk 2:48-49).
Luke 8:19-21
The Lukan narrative context is different again. Not only is the scene of Mk 3:20-21 absent, but the “Beelzebul controversy” episode has been set in an entirely different location, at a later point in the narrative (Lk 11:14-23). As in Matthew, this episode is connected with the teaching on the “return of the unclean spirit” (vv. 24-26; Matt 12:43-45) and the “sign of Jonah” (vv. 29-32; Matt 12:38-42), and may reflect a traditional ordering of the “Q” material used by both Gospels. In any event, the Beelzebul scene, with its hostility toward Jesus’ ministry, has been removed completely from the context of 8:19-21. Another major change is that the parable of the Sower has been placed ahead of the scene in 8:19-21, contrary to the (Synoptic order) of Mark/Matthew. Luke has also added the important narrative summary in 8:1-3. Let us see how these changes have altered the outline of the narrative (in relation to vv. 19-21):
-
- 8:1-3—Summary of the ministry work of Jesus (preaching the Good News and working healing miracles), and of the close disciples (the Twelve and others) who are following him. Luke uses the very language of Mk 3:14 (the calling of the Twelve), stating that these disciples were with him (met’ autou).
- 8:4-15—The Parable of the Sower, including the traditional elements:
—vv. 4-8: The parable itself
—vv. 9-10: The statement that the “secrets of the Kingdom” are only given to his (close) disciples
—vv. 11-5: An explanation of the parable - 8:16-18—The Parable/illustration of the Lamp, with the two-fold (eschatological) warning in vv. 17-18
- 8:19-21—The Scene/Saying regarding Jesus’ mother and brothers
Very little remains of the stark contrast presented in Mk 3:20-35; instead, the emphasis is primarily on the disciples of Jesus, their faithfulness to him, and the reward that will result from it. Several small, but significant, changes to the episode in 8:19-21 follow this general theme:
-
- In verse 19, Jesus’ mother and brothers themselves desire to come to Jesus and meet with him (using the vb. syntynchánœ). They are physically unable to reach him “through the crowd”.
- Luke retains the image of Jesus’ mother and brothers “standing outside”, but their purpose is not merely to “speak” to Jesus, but to meet/be together with him (v. 19) and to see him (v. 20). The motif of seeing Christ is important in the Gospel of Luke (2:26, 30; 3:6, etc), as also in the Gospel of John, and frequently has theological/Christological significance.
- The formulation of Jesus’ declaration (v. 21) is different. In Mark/Matthew, Jesus looks/motions to his disciples, and says regarding them:
“See, (here are) my mother and my brothers!” (Mk 3:34).
The saying in v. 35 follows:
“[For] whoever would do the will of God—this (one) is my brother and sister and mother“
Luke’s version of the climactic declaration, on the other hand, has largely removed (or has avoided) the basic contrast between Jesus’ natural and true/spiritual family, through a simple modification/abridgment of the saying:
“My mother and my brothers—these are the ones hearing and doing the account [i.e. word] of God”
This allows one to understand the saying to include Jesus’ mother and brothers as being among the faithful ones. This relates to the overall portrait of Jesus’ mother (Mary) and brothers in Luke-Acts. In the Lukan narrative, Mary functions in a sense as the first believer, the first person to become aware of Jesus’ true identity (see the references in the Infancy narrative, 1:28-38, 45-46ff; 2:19, 33-34, 48-51). In Acts 1:14, she is present among Jesus’ disciples, together with them in the same room—the promise of the episode in Lk 8:19-21 having at last been fulfilled.
Luke 11:27-28
As it happens, there is a parallel saying of Jesus in Luke which preserves a bit more of the original contrast found in Mk 3:20-35 par. In Luke 11:27-28, a simple tradition is recorded, in which a woman utters a blessing (macarism) to Jesus (v. 27):
“Happy the belly [i.e. womb] carrying you and the nipples that you (have) sucked!”
Jesus responds with a blessing of his own (v. 28):
“(Indeed) but then (all the more) happy (are) the (one)s hearing the account [i.e. word] of God and guarding (it)!”
The woman’s blessing refers to Jesus’ mother in a concrete physical/biological sense. While Jesus does not exactly reject this statement, he certainly downplays its significance and redirects it. This is done with the compound particle menoún(ge), which is rather difficult to render in English; it probably should be understood as something like “yes, but then all the more…” or “indeed, but now, truly…” Natural family ties mean relatively little compared with faithfulness to God (and to Jesus). It is possible that the expression “the account [i.e. word, lógos] of God” from this saying, along with the specific idea of hearing the word of God, has been used to modify the (Lukan) form of the earlier, parallel saying in 8:21. A version of the saying in 11:27-28 has also been preserved in the “Gospel of Thomas” (§79), which likely is derived from Luke (along with 23:29).
Next week, we will look at a more complex (and controversial) example of the “Triple Tradition”, and one which specifically illustrates the unique aspects of the Lukan handling of the Gospel Tradition. This is the episode of Jesus’ visit back to his hometown of Nazareth (Mk 6:1-6a par; Lk 4:16-30). I hope that you will join me here…next Saturday.