Yeshua, His Mother and Brothers

Matt. 12:46-50; Mark 3:20-21, 31-35; Luke 8:19-21

(Huck 85, 89, 104; Aland 116, 121, 135;
Crook 135, 143, 157)^[118]

Updated: 24 January 2024

עוֹדֶנּוּ מְדַבֵּר עִם הָאֻכְלוּסִים וְהִנֵּה אִמּוֹ וְאֶחָיו עוֹמְדִים בַּחוּץ מְבַקְּשִׁים לְדַבֵּר עִמּוֹ וַיֹּאמְרוּ לוֹ הֲרֵי אִמְּךָ וְאַחֶיךָ עוֹמְדִים בַּחוּץ מְבַקְּשִׁים לְדַבֵּר עִמְּךָ וַיַּעַן וַיֹּאמֶר לָהֶם אִמִּי וְאַחַי הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ הַשּׁוֹמְעִים אֶת דְּבַר אֱלֹהִים וְעוֹשִׂים

Yeshua was still addressing the crowds when his mother and brothers arrived. They stood outside hoping to speak with him. So Yeshua was told, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside hoping to speak with you.”

In response to this Yeshua said, “My mother and brothers are excellent examples of the seed that fell on good soil! They hear the word of God and act accordingly.”^[119]

Reconstruction

To view the reconstructed text of Yeshua, His Mother and Brothers click on the link below:

---

Click here to return to The Life of Yeshua: A Suggested Reconstruction main page. _______________________________________________________

---

• ^[1] For scholars who have noted that A Woman’s Misplaced Blessing in Luke parallels the placement of Yeshua, His Mother and Brothers (Part 2) in Mark, see Streeter, 278-279; John Dominic Crossan, “Mark and the Relatives of Jesus,” Novum Testamentum 15.2 (1973): 81-113, esp. 86; J. Lambrecht, “The Relatives of Jesus in Mark,” Novum Testamentum 16.4 (1974): 241-258, esp. 249-251. ↩
• ^[2] Numerous scholars have discussed Mark’s “sandwiching” of his version of The Finger of God between the two parts of Yeshua, His Mother and Brothers. See C. H. Turner, “Marcan Usage: Notes, Critical and Exegetical, on the Second Gospel: IV Parenthetical Clauses in Mark,” Journal of Theological Studies 26.102 (1925): 145-156, esp. 148; Bultmann, 29; Crossan, “Mark and the Relatives of Jesus,” 85; Lambrecht, “The Relatives of Jesus in Mark,” 252; Stephen C. Barton, Discipleship and Family Ties in Mark and Matthew (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 70. Did the author of Mark learn this “sandwiching” technique by observing how in Luke’s version of The Finger of God a reference is made to those who demanded a sign from Jesus (Luke 11:16), a theme that is not taken up until Sign-Seeking Generation (Luke 11:29-30)? ↩
• ^[3] Pace Cadbury (Style, 124), who cited Yeshua, His Mother and Brothers as a rare exception to Luke’s usual practice of accurately transmitting the words of Jesus as they appeared in his sources. In our opinion, Cadbury was misled by his assumption that Mark 3:33-35 was the source behind Luke 8:21. Of course, Cadbury was hardly unique in making this assumption; most adherents of the Two-source Hypothesis would concur. Cf., e.g., Marshall, 331; Bovon, 1:315 n. 80. ↩
• ^[4] Cf. R. Steven Notley, “Anti-Jewish Tendencies in the Synoptic Gospels,” under the subheading “Jesus and His Family”; Flusser, Jesus, 34. ↩
• ^[5] In 2 Clement we read:

  καὶ γὰρ εἶπεν ὁ κύριος· Ἀδελφοί μου οὗτοι εἰσιν οἱ ποιοῦντες τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πατρός μου.

  For the Lord said, “My brothers are these who do the will of my Father.” (2 Clem. 9:11)

  ↩

• ^[6] In the Gospel of Thomas we read:

  The disciples said to Him: Thy brethren and thy Mother are standing outside. He said to them: Those here who do the will of My Father, they are My brethren and My mother; these are they who shall enter the Kingdom of My Father. (Gos. Thom. §99 [ed. Guillaumont, 51])

  ↩

• ^[7] France (Mark, 164) summarized the difficulties in Mark 3:20-21, explaining: “There is room for disagreement over the antecedent of αὐτούς, the identification of οἱ παρ᾿ αὐτοῦ, the antecedent of αὐτόν, the subject of ἔλεγον, and the meaning and subject of ἐξέστη; the resulting permutations of exegetical possibilities are such that any understanding of these verses must be advanced with some diffidence.” ↩
• ^[8] See Dibelius, 47; Bultmann, 29; Taylor, 235; Bundy, 207 §115; Beare, Earliest, 101 §85; Crossan, “Mark and the Relatives of Jesus,” 83-84; Lambrecht, “The Relatives of Jesus in Mark,” 249; Ernest Best, “Mark III. 20, 21, 31-35,” in his Disciples and Discipleship: Studies in the Gospel of Mark (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1986), 49-63, esp. 50-52; Barton, Discipleship and Family Ties in Mark and Matthew, 69-70; Pryke, 12; Flusser, Jesus, 34 n. 36. ↩
• ^[9] See Crossan, “Mark and the Relatives of Jesus,” 83; Barton, Discipleship and Family Ties in Mark and Matthew, 69. ↩
• ^[10] On the historical present as an indicator of Markan redaction, see LOY Excursus: Mark’s Editorial Style, under the subheading “Mark’s Freedom and Creativity.” Cf. Taylor, 235. ↩
• ^[11] On “ownerless” houses as a typical feature of Markan redaction, see Jesus and a Canaanite Woman, Comment to L4. Cf. Best, “Mark III. 20, 21, 31-35,” 50; Barton, Discipleship and Family Ties in Mark and Matthew, 69. Skeat argued that καὶ ἔρχεται εἰς οἶκον should be interpreted as “and he came home [to Nazareth].” See Theodore C. Skeat, “ΑΡΤΟΝ ΦΑΓΕΙΝ: A Note on Mark iii. 20-21,” in Essays and Texts in Honor of J. David Thomas (ed. Traianos Gagos and Roger S. Bagnall; Oakville, Conn.: American Society of Papyrologists, 2001), 29-30. Similarly, Collins (226) suggested that since εἰς οἶκον (eis oikon, “into a house”) can be understood as “going home,” Mark 3:20 should be interpreted as describing Jesus’ entering his private dwelling in Capernaum. Cf. Gould, 61; France, Mark, 165 n. 31. However, Mark never states that Jesus owned a home in Capernaum, and parallel usages of “ownerless” houses elsewhere in Mark argue against Collins’ interpretation (cf., e.g., Mark 7:24, where εἰς οἰκίαν [eis oikian] can hardly refer to a “home” of Jesus on the borders of Tyre and Sidon). ↩
• ^[12] Cf. Bundy, 207 §115. ↩
• ^[13] See Robert L. Lindsey, “Introduction to A Hebrew Translation of the Gospel of Mark,” under the subheading “The Markan Stereotypes”; LOY Excursus: Catalog of Markan Stereotypes and Possible Markan Pick-ups, under the entry for Mark 2:1. ↩
• ^[14] Cf. Taylor, 235; Best, “Mark III. 20, 21, 31-35,” 50; Barton, Discipleship and Family Ties in Mark and Matthew, 70. ↩
• ^[15] This is the opinion of Crossan (“Mark and the Relatives of Jesus,” 83), Best (“Mark III. 20, 21, 31-35,” 50) and Barton (Discipleship and Family Ties in Mark and Matthew, 69). ↩
• ^[16] Skeat (“ΑΡΤΟΝ ΦΑΓΕΙΝ: A Note on Mark iii. 20-21,” 29) assumes this interpretation, and France (Mark, 165) entertains it. ↩
• ^[17] Examples of plural pronouns referring back to ὄχλος (ochlos, “crowd”) occur in Mark 2:13; 4:2 (2xx); 6:34 (2xx), 46; 7:14; 8:3 (3xx), 4; 15:8, 11, 15. On Mark’s use of plural pronouns to refer back to the “crowd” (sing.), see C. H. Turner, “Marcan Usage: Notes, Critical and Exegetical, on the Second Gospel: V The Movements of Jesus and his Disciples and the Crowd,” Journal of Theological Studies 26.103 (1925): 225-240, esp. 238; Best, “Mark III. 20, 21, 31-35,” 53. ↩
• ^[18] See Best, “Mark III. 20, 21, 31-35,” 50; France, Mark, 165. ↩
• ^[19] Cf. Taylor, 235. ↩
• ^[20] C. H. Turner, “Marcan Usage: Notes, Critical and Exegetical, on the Second Gospel: VIII Auxiliary and Quasi-auxiliary Verbs,” Journal of Theological Studies 28.112 (1927): 349-362, esp. 354-355. ↩
• ^[21] See Lindsey, HTGM, 95. ↩
• ^[22] On ὥστε + infinitive as the LXX equivalent of the Hebrew infinitive construct, see Sending the Twelve: Commissioning, Comment to L21. ↩
• ^[23] See Lindsey, HTGM, 95. ↩
• ^[24] This is the interpretation championed by John E. Steinmueller, “Jesus and the οἱ παρ᾿ αὐτοῦ (Mk. 3:21-22),” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 4.4 (1942): 355-359; Henry Wansbrough, “Mark III. 21—Was Jesus out of his Mind?” New Testament Studies 18.2 (1972): 233-235. ↩
• ^[25] We explored whether the typical patterns of Markan usage could help us determine the subject of the verb ἐξέστη in Mark 3:21. Although the author of Mark was capable of using both singular verbs (Mark 2:13; 3:20, 32; 4:1; 5:21, 24, 31; 8:1; 9:25; 11:18; 12:37, 41; 15:8 [2xx]) and plural verbs (Mark 3:9, 32; 4:1; 5:24; 6:34; 8:1 [2xx], 2 [3xx], 3, 8 [3xx]; 9:15 [4xx]) when the subject was ὄχλος (ochlos, “crowd” [sing.]), his decision whether to use singular or plural verbs was not entirely random.

  On occasion, from the very first time ὄχλος appears as the subject of a sentence, the author of Mark would use plural verbs to describe the action of the “crowd” (cf. Mark 3:9; 9:15). But whenever a singular verb is used for the action of a “crowd” in Mark, it is always the first such verb in the sentence. Any subsequent verbs in the sentence which have ὄχλος as their subject are always plural. For instance:

  καὶ ἠκολούθει αὐτῷ ὄχλος πολὺς καὶ συνέθλιβον αὐτόν

  And a large crowd was following [ἠκολούθει] him, and they were jostling [συνέθλιβον] him. (Mark 5:24)

  The only exception to this rule is in Mark 15:8 (καὶ ἀναβὰς ὁ ὄχλος ἤρξατο αἰτεῖσθαι [“and coming up, the crowd began to ask”]), but in this case the participle ἀναβάς (“coming up”) is subordinate to the verb ἤρξατο (“it began”). We do not find any examples in which the author of Mark, having begun in a sentence to use plural verbs for ὄχλος, then reverted to describing the action of the “crowd” with singular verbs.

  Unfortunately, these observations cannot rule out ὄχλος as the subject of ἐξέστη in Mark 3:21. Since the author of Mark had already used a singular verb (συνέρχεται [sūnerchetai, “it comes together”]) with ὄχλος as the subject in Mark 3:20, we might have expected him to use the plural verb ἐξέστησαν (exestēsan, “they were out of their senses”) if he intended his readers to understand that the “crowd” was the subject of the verb. However, in Mark 3:21 ἐξέστη functions as the quotation of a one-word sentence (“He/it is out of his/its senses!”), and, as we have seen, the first time the action of the "crowd" is described in a sentence the author of Mark was capable of using a singular verb. Thus, even according to the regular “rules” of Markan usage, it is grammatically possible that ὄχλος is the subject of ἐξέστη in Mark 3:21. ↩

• ^[26] See Best, “Mark III. 20, 21, 31-35,” 54. ↩
• ^[27] See C. H. Turner, “Marcan Usage: Notes, Critical and Exegetical, on the Second Gospel,” Journal of Theological Studies 25.100 (1924): 377-386, esp. 384. See also Turner, 23; Streeter, 189. ↩
• ^[28] We have already ruled out scenarios in which the "crowd" is the subject of ἐξέστη. ↩
• ^[29] See Gould, 61; Best, “Mark III. 20, 21, 31-35,” 55; France, Mark, 166-167. ↩
• ^[30] See Taylor, 236-237. ↩
• ^[31] See Crossan, “Mark and the Relatives of Jesus,” 87. ↩
• ^[32] See Ernst Harald Riesenfeld, “παρά,” TDNT, 5:727-736, esp. 731 n. 37; Best, “Mark III. 20, 21, 31-35,” 53. Gannon conceded that the author of Mark usually used plural pronouns to refer to the (singular) "crowd," but he argued that in Mark 3:21 the author of Mark was prevented from doing so because in the preceding verse the author of Mark had already used the plural pronoun αὐτούς to refer to Jesus and the apostles. Therefore, according to Gannon, the author of Mark was forced to break from his usual habit and use the singular pronoun αὐτόν (avton, “him,” “it”) to refer to the "crowd," for otherwise Mark’s sentence “would militate against the first purpose of speech, namely, intelligibility” (emphasis original). See P. J. Gannon, “Could Mark Employ Auton in 3,21 Referring to Ochlos in 3,20?” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 15.4 (1953): 460-461. But two points seriously undermine Gannon’s argument. First, it is by no means certain that the αὐτούς in Mark 3:20 refers to Jesus and the disciples. It could just as easily refer to the crowd (see above, Comment to L4-5), in which case the grounds for Gannon’s argument evaporate. Second, Mark 3:21 must be one of the most poorly constructed sentences in the Synoptic Gospels (cf. Streeter, 189). It is utterly vague, as the controversy over the correct interpretation of this verse demonstrates. Constructing an intelligible sentence, therefore, cannot have been the author of Mark’s primary concern, or if it were, he failed miserably in the attempt. ↩
• ^[33] See Riesenfeld, “παρά,” TDNT, 5:730-731. ↩
• ^[34] How could a crowd outside the house prevent the people inside from eating bread? Cf. Swete, 63; Plummer, Mark, 110. ↩
• ^[35] While Luke 6:18 has the verbs ἀκούειν and ἔρχεσθαι, the coming of the crowd was not a consequence of their hearing. ↩
• ^[36] See Crossan, “Mark and the Relatives of Jesus,” 84; Barton, Discipleship and Family Ties in Mark and Matthew, 70. Crossan included Mark 10:47 as an example of hearing and coming to Jesus, and noted that this was the only case (that of a blind man) where the Matthean and Lukan parallels accept the hearing→coming sequence (Matt. 20:30; Luke 18:36). But while the blind man does have an encounter with Jesus, Mark does not use the specific vocabulary of “coming” (expressed with ἔρχεσθαι) to Jesus. ↩
• ^[37] Best (“Mark III. 20, 21, 31-35,” 51) misses the point when he argues that the hearing→coming sequence in Mark 3:21 is “perfectly natural” and therefore unlikely to be redactional. The absence of this sequence in the Lukan and Matthean parallels demonstrates that the hearing→coming sequence reflects a Markan mode of writing. ↩
• ^[38] Cf. Barton, Discipleship and Family Ties in Mark and Matthew, 71. ↩
• ^[39] See Moulton, 106; BDAG, 756. ↩
• ^[40] See Riesenfeld, “παρά,” TDNT, 5:730-731. ↩
• ^[41] See Frederick Field, Notes on the Translation of the New Testament (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1899), 25-26; Taylor, 236; Marcus, 1:270; France, Mark, 166. ↩
• ^[42] Pace Raymond E. Brown, Karl P. Donfried, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, and John Reumann, Mary in the New Testament: A Collaborative Assessment by Protestant and Catholic Scholars (New York: Paulist Press, 1978), 55 n. 95; Guelich, 1:172; Marcus, 1:270. ↩
• ^[43] See Best, “Mark III. 20, 21, 31-35,” 52. ↩
• ^[44] See Lindsey, “Introduction to A Hebrew Translation of the Gospel of Mark,” under the subheading “Confirming the Priority of Luke.” The following table shows each of the instances of κρατεῖν in Mark and the Lukan and/or Matthean parallels (if any):

  Mark 1:31 TT (cf. Matt. 8:15; Luke 4:39) Mark 3:21 U Mark 5:41 TT = Matt. 9:25; Luke 8:54 Mark 6:17 TT = Matt. 14:3 (cf. Luke 3:20) Mark 7:3 Mk-Mt (cf. Matt. 15:[--]) Mark 7:4 Mk-Mt (cf. Matt. 15:[--]) Mark 7:8 Mk-Mt (cf. Matt. 15:3) Mark 9:10 TT (cf. Matt. 17:9; Luke 9:36) Mark 9:27 TT (cf. Matt. 17:18; Luke 9:42) Mark 12:12 TT = Matt. 21:46 (cf. Luke 20:19) Mark 14:1 TT = Matt. 26:4 (cf. Luke 22:2) Mark 14:44 TT = Matt. 26:48 (cf. Luke 22:47) Mark 14:46 TT = Matt. 26:50 (cf. Luke 22:48) Mark 14:49 TT = Matt 26:55 (cf. Luke 22:53) Mark 14:51 TT (cf. Matt. 26:[--]; Luke 22:[--]) Key: TT = pericope has parallels in all three Synoptic Gospels; Mk-Mt = Markan-Matthean pericope; U = verse unique to a particular Gospel; [--] = no corresponding verse

  ↩

• ^[45] See our discussion in LOY Excursus: Catalog of Markan Stereotypes and Possible Markan Pick-ups, under the entry for Mark 1:31. ↩
• ^[46] See Robert L. Lindsey, “A New Two-source Solution to the Synoptic Problem,” thesis 7; idem, HTGM, 28. See also LOY Excursus: Catalog of Markan Stereotypes and Possible Markan Pick-ups, under the entry for Mark 2:16. ↩
• ^[47] Lindsey, “Introduction to A Hebrew Translation of the Gospel of Mark,” under the subheading “Confirming the Priority of Luke.” ↩
• ^[48] See Hatch-Redpath, 1:496-497. ↩
• ^[49] Ibid. ↩
• ^[50] See Swete, 64; Muraoka, Lexicon, 252. ↩
• ^[51] See George E. Nickelsburg, “Stories of Biblical and Early Post-Biblical Times,” in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period (CRINT II.2; ed. Michael E. Stone; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), 33-87, esp. 52. However, see the reservations expressed by Jan Joosten, “Varieties of Greek in the Septuagint and the New Testament,” in The New Cambridge History of the Bible (4 vols.; ed. James Carleton Paget, Joachim Schaper et al.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013-2015), 1:22-45, esp. 36. According to Buth’s criteria, Aramaic is ruled out as the original language of Judith. See Randall Buth, “Distinguishing Hebrew from Aramaic in Semitized Greek Texts, with an Application for the Gospels and Pseudepigrapha” (JS2, 247-319, esp. 295). ↩
• ^[52] The LXX translators rendered וַיֵּצֵא לִבָּם in Gen. 42:28 as καὶ ἐξέστη ἡ καρδία αὐτῶν (kai exestē hē kardia avtōn, “And their heart was confounded”; NETS). ↩
• ^[53] Pace those scholars who attribute Matthew’s genitive absolute clause in Matt. 12:46 to Matthean redaction. Cf., e.g., Roger Mercurio, “Some Difficult Marian Passages in the Gospels,” Marian Studies 11 (1960): 104-122, esp. 109; Davies-Allison, 2:363. ↩
• ^[54] See LOY Excursus: The Genitive Absolute in the Synoptic Gospels. ↩
• ^[55] Cf. LHNS, 70 §89. ↩
• ^[56] The ten LXX instances of the verb form εἱστήκεισαν are found in Gen. 18:2; Num. 16:27; Josh. 4:10; 2 Kgdms. 17:17; 3 Kgdms. 13:28; Isa. 6:2; Ezek. 1:21; 10:9, 17; Dan. 12:5. ↩
• ^[57] See McNeile, 184; Davies-Allison, 2:363; Nolland, Matt., 517. ↩
• ^[58] The verb form εἱστήκεισαν occurs as the translation of עֹמְדִים in Josh. 4:10; 2 Kgdms. 17:17; 3 Kgdms. 13:28; Isa. 6:2; Dan. 12:5. The other two instances where εἱστήκεισαν occurs as the translation of a participle are found in Gen 18:2 and Num. 16:27, where it is the equivalent of נִצָּבִים (nitzāvim, “standing”). ↩
• ^[59] See Hatch-Redpath, 1:501-502. ↩
• ^[60] See Dos Santos, 60. ↩
• ^[61] The aorist ἀπέστειλαν (apesteilan, “they sent”) followed by the participle καλοῦντες (kalountes, “calling”) does not look like Hebrew. Delitzsch translated Mark’s phraseology as וַיִּשְׁלְחוּ אֵלָיו לִקְרֹא לוֹ (vayishl^eḥū ’ēlāv liqro’ lō, “and they sent to him to summon him”), with a vav-consecutive followed by an infinitive construct. Lindsey’s translation (HTGM, 97) is identical, except that he omitted אֵלָיו (’ēlāv, “to him”). ↩
• ^[62] See Crossan, “Mark and the Relatives of Jesus,” 97. ↩
• ^[63] Cf. Crossan, “Mark and the Relatives of Jesus,” 96. ↩
• ^[64] Cf., e.g., McNeile, 184-185. ↩
• ^[65] See Davies-Allison, 2:363 n. 117. ↩
• ^[66] See C. H. Turner, “Marcan Usage: Notes, Critical and Exegetical, on the Second Gospel,” Journal of Theological Studies 25.100 (1924): 377-386, esp. 380; Metzger, 32; Gundry, Matt., 249. ↩
• ^[67] See Nolland, Matt., 516. The text of Codex Sinaiticus reads:

  ἔτι αὐτοῦ λαλοῦντος τοῖς ὄχλοις ἰδοὺ ἡ μήτηρ καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοὶ αὐτοῦ ἱστήκεισαν ἔξω ὁ δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν τῷ λέγοντι αὐτῷ....

  While he was still speaking to the crowd, behold, his mother and brothers stood outside. But answering, he said to the one speaking to him....

  ↩

• ^[68] On λέγουσιν in Mark 3:32 as an impersonal verb, see Turner, “Marcan Usage: Notes, Critical and Exegetical, on the Second Gospel,” 379-380. ↩
• ^[69] Cf. Turner, “Marcan Usage: Notes, Critical and Exegetical, on the Second Gospel,” 380; Cadbury, Style, 165. And note that Luke’s πρὸς αὐτούς (pros avtous, “to them”) in L33 introducing Jesus’ reply hints at a third person plural subject for the verb in L26. ↩
• ^[70] It is surprising to note that Delitzsch’s translation of Matt. 12:47 opens with וַיֻּגַּד אֵלָיו (vayugad ’ēlāv, “and it was reported to him”), which more closely resembles Luke’s ἀπηγγέλη δὲ αὐτῷ (“but it was reported to him”; Luke 8:20) than Matthew’s εἶπεν δέ τις αὐτῷ (“but a certain one said to him”). ↩
• ^[71] On the Lukan tendency to eliminate ἰδού, see Friend in Need, Comment to L6. ↩
• ^[72] See Bendavid, 343. ↩
• ^[73] Conzelmann’s interpretation of Luke 8:20, according to which Jesus’ relatives wish to see Jesus perform some miracle (Conzelmann, 48), has rightly been rejected by Marshall (332), Fitzmyer (1:725) and Nolland (Luke, 1:394). See also Brown et al., Mary in the New Testament, 170 n. 382. ↩
• ^[74] Delitzsch rendered τῷ λέγοντι αὐτῷ as אֶל הָאִישׁ הַמַּגִּיד לוֹ (’el hā’ish hamagid lō, “to the man who was reporting to him”), which is quite different from the Greek text. ↩
• ^[75] Cf. Brown et al., Mary in the New Testament, 168. ↩
• ^[76] See, for example, FR’s version of The Kingdom of Heaven is Increasing, which attempted to convey in better Greek style the original intention of Jesus’ saying. ↩
• ^[77] Pace Mercurio, “Some Difficult Marian Passages in the Gospels,” 119 n. 42. ↩
• ^[78] Jews did not have to stop being Jews in order to become believers in Jesus, but Gentiles had to forsake their ancestral gods, which often led to severing family ties, in order to join the Christian community. In the first centuries of the Christian era it was far more disruptive for Gentiles to become Christians than for Jews. On the disruption to kinship, ethnic, and cultic obligations involved in Gentiles’ becoming believers in Jesus, see Paula Fredriksen, “Paul, Practical Pluralism, and the Invention of Religious Persecution In Roman Antiquity,” in Understanding Religious Pluralism: Perspectives from Religious Studies and Theology (ed. Peter C. Phan and Jonathan Ray; Eugene, Oreg.: Wipf and Stock, 2014), 87-113; idem, “How Jewish is God? Divine Ethnicity in Paul’s Theology,” Journal of Biblical Literature 137.1 (2018): 193-212. ↩
• ^[79] The three year and six month duration of the drought in the time of Elijah is found only in Luke 4:25 and James 5:17, and probably also derives from Jesus’ teaching. On this unique tradition regarding the duration of the drought in the days of Elijah, see Joshua N. Tilton, “Elijah Prays About Rain,” under the subheading “Three Years And Six Months.” ↩
• ^[80] See Nolland, Matt., 518. ↩
• ^[81] See LOY Excursus: Catalog of Markan Stereotypes and Possible Markan Pick-ups, under the entry for Mark 3:5. ↩
• ^[82] Cf. Best, “Mark III. 20, 21, 31-35,” 57; Barton, Discipleship and Family Ties in Mark and Matthew, 72. ↩
• ^[83] See Gundry, Matt., 249. ↩
• ^[84] Pace Mercurio (“Some Difficult Marian Passages in the Gospels,” 109), who believed the author of Matthew took the hand gesture from a pre-Markan source. ↩
• ^[85] Bruce (363) referred to Mark’s use of κύκλῳ (kūklō, “in a circle”) as “a good Greek expression.” ↩
• ^[86] There are nine instances of ἴδε in Mark (Mark 2:24; 3:34; 11:21; 13:1, 21 [2xx]; 15:4, 35; 16:6), compared to four instances in Matthew (Matt. 25:20, 22, 25; 26:65) and zero instances in Luke. ↩
• ^[87] See the LOY Excursus: Catalog of Markan Stereotypes and Possible Markan Pick-ups, under the entry for Mark 2:24. ↩
• ^[88] The following table shows all of the instances of ἴδε in Mark and the parallels in Matthew and/or Luke:

  Mark 2:24 TT (cf. Matt. 12:2 [ἰδού]; Luke 6:2 [--]) Mark 3:34 TT (cf. Matt. 12:49 [ἰδού]; Luke 8:21 [--]) Mark 11:21 Mk-Mt (cf. Matt. 21:20 [--]) Mark 13:1 TT (cf. Matt. 24:1; Luke 21:5) Mark 13:21 [1st instance] TT (cf. Matt. 24:23 [ἰδού]; Luke 17:23 [ἰδού]) Mark 13:21 [2nd instance] TT (cf. Matt. 24:23 [--]; Luke 17:23 [ἰδού]) Mark 15:4 TT (cf. Matt. 27:13 [--]; Luke 23:[--]) Mark 15:35 TT (cf. Matt. 27:47 [--]; Luke 23:[--]) Mark 16:6 TT (cf. Matt. 28:6 [ἴδετε]; Luke 24:[--]) Key: TT = pericope has parallels in all three Synoptic Gospels; DT = Lukan-Matthean pericope; Mk-Mt = Markan-Matthean pericope; [--] = no corresponding word and/or verse

  ↩

• ^[89] On the avoidance of ἰδού as a redactional characteristic of Luke’s Gospel, see Friend in Need, Comment to L6. ↩
• ^[90] See Dibelius, 57, 63-64; Crossan, “Mark and the Relatives of Jesus,” 98. Cf. Best, “Mark III. 20, 21, 31-35,” 57-58; Barton, Discipleship and Family Ties in Mark and Matthew, 73-74. Bultmann (29-30, 143), on the other hand, believed that Mark 3:31-34 was created to supply Mark 3:35 with a narrative context. ↩
• ^[91] See Bundy, 239 §145; Beare, Earliest, 120 §104; Marshall, 330; Brown et al., Mary in the New Testament, 169-170. ↩
• ^[92] On אֵלּוּ as the MH equivalent of BH אֵלֶּה see Segal, 41 §72; Kutscher, 124 §203. ↩
• ^[93] Examples of prophets exclaiming שִׁמְעוּ דְּבַר יי occur in Josh. 3:9; 2 Kgs. 7:1; Isa. 1:10; 28:14; 66:5; Jer. 2:4; 7:2; 29:20; 31:10; 42:15; 44:24, 26; Hos. 4:1; 2 Chr. 18:18. ↩
• ^[94] See Best, “Mark III. 20, 21, 31-35,” 58; Barton, Discipleship and Family Ties in Mark and Matthew, 73. ↩
• ^[95] See Crossan, “Mark and the Relatives of Jesus,” 97. ↩
• ^[96] Cf., e.g., 2 Sam. 17:6; Esth. 5:5; Mechilta de-Shimon ben Yohai, Sanya 3:8 (ed. Epstein, 2). ↩
• ^[97] On Jesus’ similarity to the first-century Jewish pietists, see Shmuel Safrai, “Jesus and the Hasidim.” ↩
• ^[98] Cf. Crossan, “Mark and the Relatives of Jesus,” 97. ↩
• ^[99] On the close relationship between the Gospel of Matthew and the Didache, see Huub van de Sandt, “The Didache and its Relevance for Understanding the Gospel of Matthew.” ↩
• ^[100] Cf. Gundry, Matt., 250. ↩
• ^[101] Pace Mercurio, “Some Difficult Marian Passages in the Gospels,” 109. ↩
• ^[102] See Best, “Mark III. 20, 21, 31-35,” 61-62. ↩
• ^[103]

  Yeshua, His Mother and Brothers
  Luke’s Version		Anthology’s Wording (Reconstructed)
  παρεγένετο δὲ πρὸς αὐτὸν ἡ μήτηρ καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ οὐκ ἠδύναντο συντυχεῖν αὐτῷ διὰ τὸν ὄχλον ἀπηγγέλη δὲ αὐτῷ ἡ μήτηρ σου καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοί σου ἑστήκασιν ἔξω ἰδεῖν θέλοντές σε ὁ δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτούς μήτηρ μου καὶ ἀδελφοί μου οὗτοί εἰσιν οἱ τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ ἀκούοντες καὶ ποιοῦντες		ἔτι αὐτοῦ λαλοῦντος τοῖς ὄχλοις καὶ ἰδοὺ ἡ μήτηρ αὐτοῦ καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοὶ αὐτοῦ εἱστήκεισαν ἔξω ζητοῦντες αὐτῷ λαλῆσαι εἶπαν δὲ αὐτῷ ἰδοὺ ἡ μήτηρ σου καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοί σου ἑστήκασιν ἔξω ζητοῦντές σοι λαλῆσαι ὁ δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτούς μήτηρ μου καὶ ἀδελφοί μου ἰδοὺ οὗτοί εἰσιν οἱ ἀκούοντες τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ ποιοῦντες
  Total Words:	54	Total Words:	57
  Total Words Identical to Anth.:	38	Total Words Taken Over in Luke:	38
  Percentage Identical to Anth.:	70.37%	Percentage of Anth. Represented in Luke:	66.67%

  ↩

• ^[104]

  Yeshua, His Mother and Brothers
  Mark’s Version		Anthology’s Wording (Reconstructed)
  καὶ ἔρχονται ἡ μήτηρ αὐτοῦ καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἔξω στήκοντες ἀπέστειλαν πρὸς αὐτὸν καλοῦντες αὐτόν καὶ ἐκάθητο περὶ αὐτὸν ὄχλος καὶ λέγουσιν αὐτῷ ἰδοὺ ἡ μήτηρ σου καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοί σου ἔξω ζητοῦσίν σε καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς αὐτοῖς λέγει τίς ἐστιν ἡ μήτηρ μου καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοί περιβλεψάμενος τοὺς περὶ αὐτὸν κύκλῳ καθημένους λέγει ἴδε ἡ μήτηρ μου καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοί μου ὃς ἂν ποιήσῃ τὸ θελήματα τοῦ θεοῦ οὗτος ἀδελφός μου καὶ ἀδελφὴ καὶ μήτηρ ἐστίν		ἔτι αὐτοῦ λαλοῦντος τοῖς ὄχλοις καὶ ἰδοὺ ἡ μήτηρ αὐτοῦ καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοὶ αὐτοῦ εἱστήκεισαν ἔξω ζητοῦντες αὐτῷ λαλῆσαι εἶπαν δὲ αὐτῷ ἰδοὺ ἡ μήτηρ σου καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοί σου ἑστήκασιν ἔξω ζητοῦντές σοι λαλῆσαι ὁ δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτούς μήτηρ μου καὶ ἀδελφοί μου ἰδοὺ οὗτοί εἰσιν οἱ ἀκούοντες τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ ποιοῦντες
  Total Words:	78	Total Words:	57
  Total Words Identical to Anth.:	27	Total Words Taken Over in Mark:	27
  Percentage Identical to Anth.:	34.62%	Percentage of Anth. Represented in Mark:	47.37%

  ↩

• ^[105] Pace Best (“Mark III. 20, 21, 31-35,” 57), who allowed for only a single Markan redactional feature in Yeshua, His Mother and Brothers (viz., περιβλεψάμενος [“looking around”]) in Mark 3:34 (L38). ↩
• ^[106] Cf. Best, “Mark III. 20, 21, 31-35,” 61. ↩
• ^[107]

  Yeshua, His Mother and Brothers
  Matthew’s Version		Anthology’s Wording (Reconstructed)
  ἔτι αὐτοῦ λαλοῦντος τοῖς ὄχλοις ἰδοὺ ἡ μήτηρ καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοὶ αὐτοῦ εἱστήκεισαν ἔξω ζητοῦντες αὐτῷ λαλῆσαι εἶπεν δέ τις αὐτῷ ἰδοὺ ἡ μήτηρ σου καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοί σου ἔξω ἑστήκασιν ζητοῦντές σοι λαλῆσαι ὁ δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς τῷ λέγοντι αὐτῷ τίς ἐστιν ἡ μήτηρ μου καὶ τίνες εἰσὶν οἱ ἀδελφοί μου καὶ ἐκτείνας τὴν χεῖρα αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ τοὺς μαθητὰς αὐτοῦ εἶπεν ἰδοὺ ἡ μήτηρ μου καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοί μου ὅστις γὰρ ἂν ποιήσῃ τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πατρός μου τοῦ ἐν οὐρανοῖς αὐτός μου ἀδελφὸς καὶ ἀδελφὴ καὶ μήτηρ ἐστίν		ἔτι αὐτοῦ λαλοῦντος τοῖς ὄχλοις καὶ ἰδοὺ ἡ μήτηρ αὐτοῦ καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοὶ αὐτοῦ εἱστήκεισαν ἔξω ζητοῦντες αὐτῷ λαλῆσαι εἶπαν δὲ αὐτῷ ἰδοὺ ἡ μήτηρ σου καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοί σου ἑστήκασιν ἔξω ζητοῦντές σοι λαλῆσαι ὁ δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτούς μήτηρ μου καὶ ἀδελφοί μου ἰδοὺ οὗτοί εἰσιν οἱ ἀκούοντες τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ ποιοῦντες
  Total Words:	89	Total Words:	57
  Total Words Identical to Anth.:	46	Total Words Taken Over in Matt:	46
  Percentage Identical to Anth.:	51.69%	Percentage of Anth. Represented in Matt.:	80.70%

  ↩

• ^[108] Only by reading Luke’s version with Markan glasses is it possible to so stretch the meaning of Luke’s version of Yeshua, His Mother and Brothers. Plummer (Luke, 224), Nolland (Luke, 1:395) and J. Green (330) fall into this error. ↩
• ^[109] On Jesus’ tendency to identify and praise the good in other people, see Joshua N. Tilton, Jesus’ Gospel: Searching for the Core of Jesus’ Message, Chapter 10: The Way of the Kingdom: Love. ↩
• ^[110] Pace Hagner, 1:359. ↩
• ^[111] The tradition that Joseph was already dead by the time Yeshua, His Mother and Brothers took place is an ancient one, appearing in Epiphanius’ Panarion 78:10 §7 (fourth century C.E.). ↩
• ^[112] Cf. Buchanan, 1:546. ↩
• ^[113] See Meier, Marginal, 1:320-332, 354-363; Geza Vermes, The Nativity: History and Legend (London: Penguin, 2006), 74-75. ↩
• ^[114] See Michael Mach, “Are there Jewish Elements in the ‘Protoevangelium Jacobi’?” Proceedings of the Ninth World Congress of Jewish Studies Division A (Jerusalem, 1986): 215-222; Tim Horner, “Jewish Aspects of the Protoevangelium of James,” Journal of Early Christian Studies 12.3 (2004): 313-335. ↩
• ^[115] On the idealization of perpetual widowhood in some ancient Jewish sources, see Shmuel Safrai, “Home and Family” (Safrai-Stern, 2:728-792, esp. 788-789); Tal Ilan, Jewish Women in Greco-Roman Palestine (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrikson, 1996), 149. ↩
• ^[116] On the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity, see J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines (rev. ed.; San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1978), 492-493. ↩
• ^[117] Two other Jewish—or at least biblical—considerations may have led some believers to the conclusion that Jesus’ mother gave birth to no other children. First, the mothers of other children born from miraculous pregnancies are not usually said to have had any subsequent children. Thus Sarah gave birth only to Isaac, Manoah’s wife gave birth only to Samson, and Hannah gave birth only to Samuel. Likewise, Elizabeth gave birth only to John the Baptist. Since these women’s miraculous pregnancies paved the way for Mary’s miraculous conception of Jesus, it is understandable that the notion might arise that, like these women before her, Mary had no further children. Second, in some ancient Jewish sources celibacy is regarded as a precondition for the presence of the Holy Spirit. See John C. Poirier and Joseph Frankovic, “Celibacy and Charism in 1 Cor 7:5-7,” Harvard Theological Review 89.1 (1996): 1-18. Mary’s sanctification by the Holy Spirit may have led some Jewish-Christian believers to the conclusion that Mary remained celibate throughout her life. ↩
• ^[118] For abbreviations and bibliographical references, see “Introduction to ‘The Life of Yeshua: A Suggested Reconstruction.’” ↩
• ^[119] This translation is a dynamic rendition of our reconstruction of the conjectured Hebrew source that stands behind the Greek of the Synoptic Gospels. It is not a translation of the Greek text of a canonical source. ↩