Mark 3:21, quoted above,  is  used by almost every biblical scholar to make the point that Jesus’ relationship with his family was less than ideal. Jeffrey Butz in his excellent book The brother of Jesus and the lost teachings of Christianity  (2005) has done a lot of work analyzing this section. He looked at some of the other translations of this very same passage:

Notice how the various translations identify the main subjects as (alternately) his family, or friends, or people, and there are still other variations that use the word “relatives” (New American Bible) and “disciples” (Painter, 1999). Not only are the main subjects varied, the belief about Jesus’ state of mind varies from “beside himself” to “out of his mind” and the believers vary from his relatives (family) to the general crowd. So we have radically different versions of the same story – in one case, Jesus’ family is rescuing him from people who think he is out of his mind, and in another case, the disciples are trying to restrain him because they believe he is beside himself. How does this happen? Let’s look at the exact translation from the Greek, provided by Butz:

“And hearing [it], the ones with him went forth to seize him; for they said that he is beside himself” (Butz, 2005 p. 26) (italics added)

Obviously, translators have wide latitude in how a specific word or phrase is translated, and for this reason, the number of possible variations is extremely large. The “ones with him” can be his disciples or his followers/people/friends, or it can be his family. Under such circumstances, the biases or predilections of the translator are likely to play a substantial part in determining the outcome. And because of this, It’s difficult to determine what is historical and what is literary license. In this particular case, it seems more logical that the reference “the ones with him” refers to his disciples, and not his family who do not show up until much later (10 more verses). Yet almost every “official” translation uses “family” instead of “disciples.”

If we can dismiss Mark 3:21. what other evidence is there? Mark 3:31-35 (Jesus was told that his family was outside and he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. Whoever does the will of God is my brother, and sister, and mother”) is also cited as an indication of poor family relations, however, by itself it appears to be relatively benign, reinforcing the unity of the “new” family without overtly rejecting his biological family.

Of all the references to his family in the New Testament, only John 7:5 (“For not even his brothers believed in him”) appears to cast a jaded view upon his family relations. Yet the use of the parentheses [2] and the disparity between this comment and the preceding comments by his brothers (that are clearly supportive) suggest strongly that John 7:5 is a later insertion. All things considered, and given the problems that can (and do) arise in any family, the case for Jesus’ poor family relations is a weak one.

Considering the prominent place that Jesus’ family held in the Jewish Christian sect that emerged following his death, one has to conclude that he had a good relationship with his family. His mother and brothers all worked together to continue his ministry, and after their deaths, the leadership of the Jerusalem church remained in the hands of his grand nephews. Moreover, during his ministry, there are several clues that indicate his family was actively involved prior to his death. For example, his mother Mary initiates the first of Jesus’ “acts of power” (turning water into wine) at the Cana wedding (John 2) and his mother and brothers join Jesus and his disciples for several days in Capernaum (John 2:12). Moreover, It’s his brothers who encourage him to display his miracles in public (John 7:5), and his brother James is considered one of the apostles to whom the risen Jesus appears (1 Cor 7; 1 Gal 18). Looking at all the evidence, pro and con, Butz (2005) concludes: “on balance there is more evidence to support a positive role for Jesus’ family in his ministry than a negative one (p. 39).”

Wilson (1992) has theorized that the negative relationship between Jesus and his family was placed in the Gospels (especially in the Gospel of Mark) to dissuade early Christians from following the Jesus cult that was administered by Jesus’ family. Wilson says: “…it would not be surprising if other parts of the church, particularly the Gentiles, liked telling stories about Jesus as a man who had no sympathy or support from his family (p. 86).” Butz (2005) is more succinct: “…by the time Mark was writing in the late 60s, the Gentile churches outside of Israel were beginning to resent the authority wielded by Jerusalem where James and the apostles were leaders, thus providing the motive for Mark’s antifamily stance… (p. 44).” Other prominent scholars agree (e.g., Crosson, 1973; Mack, 1988; Painter. 1999). Conspiracy theorists take note!

Last updated 7/5/06