This Christmas, Abdu and I released episodes of our podcast, All Rise, in which we answered some common objections to the birth narrative of Jesus found in the Gospel of Matthew. You can watch those episodes here and here. In response to these episodes, we received an interesting question:
If the virgin birth was real, then why did Mary, Joseph, and the rest of Jesus’ family think he was crazy?
It’s a great question! Because the questioner is correct: if the virgin birth really happened, you would think the family of Jesus would just trust everything he decided to do and question nothing. But that doesn’t seem to be what we find in the text. So let’s figure out what is going on in this confusing section.
First, some context.
Jesus Called “Out Of His Mind” By His Family
This claim comes from the text of Mark 3:20-34. Here we find Jesus still in the region of Galilee where he grew up. He has been attracting large crowds due to many public healings and exorcisms, controversial self-proclamations (“The Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath,” Mark 2:28), and resultant run-ins with Jewish authorities. Some people loved him. Some, on the other hand, wanted to kill him (3:6).
Then Jesus enters a house with his disciples (3:20). A crowd seemingly made up of those that had been following him and new inquisitive seekers gathered outside of the house and continued to grow. Even teachers of the law from Jerusalem came to try to get the situation under control. And it is in this section of Mark’s Gospel where we read about Jesus’ family. After Jesus enters the house, we are told that “his family,” presumably elsewhere, “heard about this, and they went to take charge of him, for they said, ‘He is out of his mind’” (3:21).
The next thing we read is that the teachers of the law charged Jesus with being possessed by a demon (3:22). Jesus has an extended conversation with the teachers of the law (3:23-30). And then, we finally read, “Then Jesus’ mother and brothers arrived” (3:31).
Option 1: The Seizing Teachers of the Law
This text in Mark 3:21 is more difficult to translate than I first realized, which is no doubt problematized by the rudimentary grammar noted in Mark’s Gospel. All in all, there are multiple issues with the Greek text that have led me to doubt the translation in most modern English translations.
But let me first say, even if Jesus was thought to be “out of his mind” (whatever that would precisely mean in that context), I would not consider this insurmountable. Even a strong sense of destiny can be challenged if a mother sees her son doing and saying things that place him at odds with powerful entities who have the desire and, as we now know, power to hurt and kill people.
But with that said, is the charge true? Did Joseph, Mary, and the brothers of Jesus think he was crazy?
Joseph?
The issue with claiming the “parents” or “Joseph and Mary” thought Jesus was crazy is that Joseph appears nowhere in this text. Church tradition tells us that Joseph died at some point between Jesus’ trip to the Temple in his adolescence (Luke 2:41-52) and at this point in his adult years.
So, we have no reason to believe Joseph considered Jesus crazy based on Mark 3.
Jesus’ “family”?
The phrase translated as “family” here is not one of the standard term usedf for family in the New Testament. As a matter of fact, it isn’t used anywhere in the New Testament to describe family. Some think it refers to family because the phrase translated literally may mean something like “of his own.”
Elsewhere in Mark and the other Gospels they refer to Jesus’ family differently. They usually are explicit: his “mother,” his “brothers,” and his “sisters.” And quite often, as we read here in this very section of Mark 3, we read “mother and brothers,” which was a common way of referring to his family (see Matt 12:46-47, 13:55; Mark 3:31-32; Luke 8:19-20; John 2:12; Acts 1:14).
Other typical ways of referring to family in the New Testament include the word “brotherhood” or “siblinghood,” which was used for the Church as a whole, adelphoteti (1 Pet 2:17, 5:19). But an even more common word for family was “household” (Luke 2:4; 9:61; 12:52; 16:27; John 8:35). Mark 6:4 actually uses the word syngeneusin, “same kind,” to refer to relatives in general. The word is made up of the root words for “together” and “kind” or “generation” or “family,” the latter being the word used in the Bible when it speaks of a father who “begat” a son, or of Jesus as the only “begotten” of the Father.
So, it seems that “of his own” does not necessarily refer to the family of Jesus.
Markan Sandwich?
One of the main reasons translators have concluded after much debate and head-scratching that this phrase must correspond to Jesus’ family is because of the so-called “Markan Sandwich.” This is a textual convention that Mark uses sometimes. As the theory goes, Mark sometimes starts a story, then interjects another story that happens along the way, then concludes the actual main story he is meaning to tell. And so, in order to take “of his own” to mean “family,” one must connect the two slices of “bread” of the sandwich: Mark 3:21 (“of his own”) and 3:31 (his “mother and brothers”).
I do not presume to challenge the validity of the Markan Sandwich overall. Rather, I only point out that one must assume the Markan Sandwich is in play here in order to confidently translate the term in 3:21 as “family.” But that seems backwards to me. You must use the text to see if a Markan Sandwich has occurred; you cannot use it to translate (or rather, interpret) and obscure term. The Markan Sandwich is something observed after the fact, not something that should be used as a rudder for interpretation and translation. This becomes circular. “How do you know Mark 3:21 means ‘family’? Because of the Markan Sandwich. And how do you know the Markan Sandwich is appropriate here? Because 3:21 means ‘family’.”
Teachers of the law?
One theory is that “of his own” might refer to teachers of the law. And there are a few persuasive reasons one might think that.
First, if this group of people said that Jesus was “out of his mind,” then there is only one group who consistently does that throughout the New Testament. Never his family, never his friends, and never his disciples, but only that group we might generalize as “Jewish authorities,” including the teachers of the law.
Second, in this section of Mark, the most immediate context is of teachers of the law coming down from Jerusalem in order to accuse Jesus of being possessed by a demon. My assumption is that most people possessed by demons are also out of their minds. And we don’t have to jump ten verses ahead to make this connection. We hear about these teachers right after Mark 3:21.
Third, teachers of the law could be understood as being “of his own” in reference to Jesus. Jesus was becoming well known for his teaching on the law (Matthew 5). He was referred to as “Rabbi,” who was someone who taught about the law (Mark 9:5, 10:51, 14:45). And finally, while his strongest rebukes were toward the Pharisees, it is because he had the most in common with them, theologically speaking. It would not be uncommon for people to consider Jesus and Pharisees/teachers of the law as somewhat in the same category, even while they understood Jesus’ teaching on the law to far surpass that of anyone else’s (Mark 1:22; Luke 4:32).
Interestingly, some manuscript traditions from the 5th century or earlier arose in the Western Roman Empire that apparently amended this text and attempted to clarify it by swapping out the phrase “of his own” for “scribes and teachers of the law.” Some scholars believe this is a rather obvious attempt to cover an “embarrassing admission” in the text. It seems odd to adjust this one and leave so many others intact, especially since the change in attitude of his family immediately following his resurrection could be seen as proof of the validity of this Passover miracle. Rather, could it be simply an attempt to clarify what may have been unclear wording that was leading to a misunderstanding in the early Christian communities? Whatever the case, these manuscripts are not considered to contain the “original reading” of Mark 3:21. But, it shows that others too believed that teachers of the law (and scribes) were the likely referents of “of his own” here.
Fourth, there is also a bit of an issue with the phrase “take charge.” This is translated in such a way to make it sound like a family coming to take over the affairs of a mentally unstable family member. However, this implies the interpretation already favored rather than understanding the word in its wider context.
The term translated as “take charge” in Mark 3:21 is used in various ways throughout the rest of Mark. Sometimes it is used of the Pharisees “clinging” to their overly restrictive teachings and traditions (Mark 7:3, 4, 8). Three times it is used of Jesus “taking” someone by the hand who he has healed (Mark 1:31, 5:41, 9:27). But of its 15 instances in the Gospel of Mark, seven of these refer to the seizing and/or arresting of someone by Jewish authorities or a Jewish mob (Mark 6:17; 12:12; 14:1, 44, 46, 49; 14:51). This does not include Mark 3:21, which I have left unclassified to this point, but one could make the case here by sheer numbers and immediate context that the term most likely refers to the hope of teachers of the law to “seize” Jesus for his teaching and works.
Fifth and finally, the parallel accounts can shed light on Mark’s account as well. It is often thought that the so-called “Synoptic” Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, are largely founded upon the Gospel of Mark. This makes perfect sense if true, since Mark’s Gospel is based on the testimony of Peter, one of Jesus’ closest disciples. Some early voices in the Church believed Matthew was the first Gospel written. Whatever the case, the Gospel authors were clearly sharing sources and intel.
And that is what makes the parallels in these instances so fascinating. It is not so much what they get the same that is interesting, but what they omit. This section from Mark 3 is paralleled in Matthew 12:22-50, and then it is partially paralleled in Luke 8:19-21 and 11:14-23. In these parallel accounts, there is no mention of Jesus’ family considering him crazy. All we have is the Jewish authorities thinking he was a blasphemer who should be killed, and then later his family shows up outside of a crowded house.
A problem with “teachers of the law” interpretation
There is really only one thing that keeps me from fully embracing that “of his own” refers to teachers of the law, and it is the same reason why I think it should not apply to Jesus’ family. Nowhere else in the New Testament is this phrase used to refer to the teachers of the law, scribes, or Pharisees. And if you meant to speak about them, the common way to do it would be to refer to them specifically.
So perhaps there is something we have been missing about the meaning of this mysterious phrase.
Option 2: The Disciples And The Adoring Crowd
In the scholarly literature about the identity of those who called Jesus crazy, it is often assumed that the phrase refers to those “of his own,” as in, “of his people.” However, it could more literally mean in this instance “those from the side of him.” That is an important distinction.
Dr. Drew Holland, a biblical scholar at the University of Tennessee Southern, noticed something interesting about this text. Most scholars, he pointed out, tend to focus on who is referred to in the odd phrase often translated “family.” However, Dr Holland looked instead at the phrase “out of his mind” and checked it against the parallel texts mentioned above.
Matthew and Luke’s versions say not that Jesus was “out of his mind” but that the crowd was “amazed.” Matthew’s version is using the same word Mark does that is translated “out of his mind.” As a matter of fact, every other usage of this term in the New Testament is translated as amazement or astonishment, even in Mark’s Gospel. Holland notes that the term connotes “a positive, albeit disrupted, mental state.” Mark and the other Gospel writers often use this word in relation to the crowds who, after encountering Jesus, are amazed at his miraculous works. And in Mark 3, the crowd is following Jesus on the heels of him healing a man with a shriveled hand on the Sabbath (Mark 3:1-6). And most often, in Mark and the other Gospels, it is his disciples who attempt to protect Jesus from adoring and growing crowds (Mark 3:9, 6:35-36, 10:13, 14:47; Matthew 14:15, 15:23; Luke 9:11-13).
The issue is that we have perhaps mistranslated the text and understood the wrong referents for particular words and phrases. Therefore, Holland produces the following translation of Mark 3:21, which is not only faithful to the context and in line with the parallels and other usages of words in question, but is also faithful to the ‘simple’ grammar of Mark used elsewhere (for example, Mark 14:15-16, which uses the same grammatical convention): “And having heard, the ones near him [his disciples or his family] went out to take hold of him; for they [the crowd] were saying that he has amazed [us].”
This interpretation helps to explain why the phrase translated “family” or “of his own” or “from the side of him” is even used at all when Mark is typically very specific about the people in Jesus’ life. It is because this verse is simply meant to say something like, “those people already in the scene that I have introduced previously,” or, in other words, Jesus’ disciples.
Historical Confirmation?
Holland notes that the early church tended to focus on writing commentaries on the other, longer Gospels and not on Mark’s. However, there is some evidence that the earliest interpreters who were still within the Greek milieu that the New Testament was written in (Tatian in the second century and Pseudo-Chrysostom, who appears to be fluent in Greek, in the fifth century) understood Mark 3 just as Holland has described. In other words, they write as if this text is not about Jesus being “out of his mind” (an interpretation that appears to have arisen in the Latin West under Jerome) but rather, in Pseudo-Chrysostom’s words, a “grateful multitude of people.”
The arguments Holland proposes are very persuasive. Some are more technical, so I recommend you read for yourself.
Verdict
When all is said and done, it appears as if Jesus’ family never considered him “out of his mind.” More and more, this seems like it is the least likely interpretation. Only Jewish authorities tended to use such harsh language toward Jesus. And in this instance, it may not be that Jesus was considered “out of his mind,” but that, more likely, the growing crowd was “amazed” at him and his disciples tried to protect him from them.
Not So Fast: John 7:5 And The Doubting Brothers
One person who brought up this question then pointed to John 7:5, which reads, “For even his own brothers did not believe in him.” This, my interlocutor stated, is still proof of something that should not be if the virgin birth was real. There are a few things to note.
First, not believing in someone (which can mean a variety of things) is a very different claim than thinking someone is out of his mind. There is no indication that his brothers ever thought he was crazy, which was the initial claim (along with the claim about Mary and Joseph).
Second, who are these “brothers”? Jesus was still in his homeland, so these could be close or even distant relatives. In the ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament, known as the Septuagint or LXX, the same word typically translated as “brothers” is used for the relationship between Jacob and Laban (Gen 29:15), even though Laban was the uncle of Jacob, and for the relationship between Abraham and Lot (Gen 13:8), even though Abraham was Lot’s uncle. Elsewhere in John’s Gospel, Jesus’s apostles and disciples are called his brothers (John 20:17). Just to make it harder on ourselves, and to go with the most common understanding of this term, let’s assume they were in some way close “brothers” of Jesus (which is understood differently between Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox Christians). These brothers are James, Joses, Judas, and Simon (Mark 6:3). For what it’s worth, Jesus also had sisters (Matthew 13:56).
Third, we do not know what precisely the brothers did not “believe.” Phrases related to “believing in” Jesus in John’s Gospel refer to his divine identity (John 8:30, 11:45, 12:11), his power over eternity (3:15-18, 6:40), his overall mission as prophet-Messiah-Savior (4:1-42), and the timing of his mission and the revealing of his glory (2:11). This latter issue of timing is important, for Jesus responds to his brothers by discussing the timing of his mission (John 7:6, 8). The matter of “timing” and “the hour” was a common one in John’s Gospel (John 2:4; 4:21, 23; 5:25, 28; 7:30; 8:20; 12:23, 27; 13:1; 16:21, 25; 17:1).
This theme of the timing and the hope of an early revelation of his full glory was picked up by 4th-5th century contemporaries John Chrysostom and Augustine of Hippo. They stated that Jesus’ brothers, like many of his followers (including many zealots), wanted Jesus to trap the Jews right away. They wanted him to go after his own glory and give everyone their comeuppance. This is in line with one of the theories about the betrayal by Judas which states that Judas was not turning on Jesus just simply out of avarice or wickedness, but because he wanted to force Jesus’ hand to destroy corrupt Jewish leaders and the Roman Empire already! This is related to the fact that “Iscariot” may be a name derived from sicarii, which could refer to a group of violent Jewish guerilla assassins, and it explains why Judas may have felt such remorse after the fact (Matthew 27:3).
Fifth, this fits with the theme Jesus encountered all throughout Galilee, which he described as: “A prophet is not without honor except in his own town, among his relatives [syngeneusin] and in his own home [oikia]” (Mark 6:4). Mark even adds, “He could not do any miracles there, except lay his hands on a few sick people and heal them. He was amazed at their lack of faith” (Mark 6:5-6). Whether this refers to an inability to perform miracles for those without faith or an unwillingness to do so because none sought his healing is not made explicit and perhaps beside the point. The main thing is this: familiarity breeds skepticism and envy.
Perhaps a similar example will suffice. I used to work at a Lutheran Church where one of the parishioners had been going there since he was a child. While I was there, he graduated from high school and entered a program that would eventually lead to seminary and ordination in the very same Lutheran denomination. Some of the elder people in the congregation, who loved this young man, struggled with the idea that he may come and be their spiritual leader. It wasn’t his age that bothered him. It was that they knew him and watched him grow up. “How could he ever guide me? How could I take him seriously?” one asked. “It would be too weird to give him personal details about my life,” said another. They could not see this person as anything other than the little boy they watched grow up. The fact that he now was a grown, ordained man didn’t matter.
Sixth, this fits with another well-documented theme in the Gospels: everyone, even Jesus’ close confidants, were slow to understand—and in the case of the crucifixion, accept—his true mission.
But shouldn’t this all be different for those who knew about the virgin birth?
This assumes that his brothers were perfectly behaved, controllable, and obedient angels. That might be expected were this a purely fictional mythological story, but it isn’t. It is a real account of real people with their own quirks, their own promise, and their own problems. Children disobey parents. They do what is so obviously bad for themselves at times. They sometimes don’t believe the stories their parents tell them about the past. This is a universal human experience.
Another universal human experience is sibling rivalry. Jealousy. Middle child syndrome. The youngest child’s demand for attention. Or, conversely, perhaps they had hoped his status would gain them fame and glory, but it hadn’t. Perhaps his brothers were jealous of the attention he received. Perhaps that developed into cynicism toward his mission. And perhaps that cynicism was confirmed when they heard about the company he kept and the powerful people that were calling him a blasphemer and a devil. Et cetera, et cetera.
But another thing this assumes is that Jesus’ brothers knew about the virgin birth at all. But what if they didn’t? Perhaps Jesus’ parents kept it from them in order to protect them and Jesus, especially in light of the “massacre of the innocents” (Matthew 2:16-18). This would explain why very little is told about Jesus’ adolescence in the Gospels—very little of significance happened because divine wills and human wills combined. On the divine side, it was not yet Jesus’ time to act. On the human side, Joseph and Mary may have wanted to keep the young child safe from danger. And part of that may have been withholding information from his brothers, since children can’t be trusted (and shouldn’t have the burden placed on them) to keep such an important secret.
What I have offered in this section is not a slam dunk case. It is speculation. But it is speculation that attempts to make sense of the reality of the situation and the complexity of the characters. When skeptics assume that the Bible is untrue and simplistic hogwash, they come to stories like this, and then throw their hands up in the air, feigning defeat at the first obstacle. However, if you assume the authors themselves were aware of how strange the story was but decided to tell it because it is true (when they so easily could have excluded “embarrassing details” like this), then it makes sense what is going on: they are detailing real people, who don’t always act consistently or predictably.
What we should actually be focused on is …
It is not the brothers’ lack of faith in Jesus that should disturb the Christian mind. It is the brothers’ lives after the Resurrection that should “astonish” the skeptical mind. Whatever the reason for their unbelief, that apparently turned quickly to belief, as we read in Acts 1:14, after the Resurrection and ascension of Jesus: “They all joined together constantly in prayer, along with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers.”
Two of his brothers have writings included in the New Testament. James and Jude are called Jesus’ brothers by other Apostles and Gospel authors (Mark 6:3; Matthew 13:55), and the Jewish historian Josephus lists James as a brother of Jesus as well. But James does not dare call himself the Lord’s brother. Instead, he says he is “a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ” (James 1:1). Jude follows suit, calling himself “a servant of Jesus Christ and a brother of James.”
Some have thought that James perhaps had a low view of Jesus. I mean, he doesn’t mention the Resurrection or anything about Jesus’ life. He barely even mentions the name “Jesus.” So perhaps this was before the later “fictions” about the divinity of Jesus, the skeptic opines. However, if we understand that James tends to refer to Jesus not with the familiar and familial name of “Jesus,” but rather with “Lord” (James 1:1, 2:1) another pattern emerges. This was common in the early church to understand that the Father is Lord and God and Jesus is Lord and God, but for the sake of keeping it straight in writing and hymnody, the Father was more often referred to as “God” and Jesus was more often referred to as “Lord.” When we understand that, we see that James believes Jesus is the one who will bestow on others the “crown of life” (James 1:12), that those who humble themselves before him will be exalted (4:10), that he will return (5:7), and that he will raise up and forgive those who pray and confess their sins in faith (5:15-16).
Jude also has some very exalted language for Jesus, writing that “the Lord at one time delivered his people out of Egypt, but later destroyed those who did not believe” (Jude 1:5). This is no mere mention of the “Old Testament God.” Rather, again, “Lord” refers to Jesus in this case, as is clear from one verse before in Jude 1:4. Moreover, our best manuscripts actually say “Jesus at one time delivered his people out of Egypt,” instead of “The Lord.” The majority of our translations will say “the Lord” only because the rules of textual criticism tend to favor the “hard reading,” i.e. the one that seems less theologically motivated if there is a discrepancy in manuscripts. However, in this case, the textual evidence is so overwhelming that some translations have begun to use the name “Jesus” instead of “Lord.” The more important point, though, is that Jude, who at one time in some way did not “believe in” Jesus, has now equated him with the figure known as “YHWH” in the Old Testament.
My interlocutor who started this line of question then tried to claim that, well, James and Jude probably lied for the benefits. He specifically mentioned tithes. Yet, Christianity was well known—and indeed mocked—for being the religion of the poor and “ignorant” (the classification given by pagans, not me!), such as slaves, women, and children. It is true that Jesus’ ministry had been funded by certain women before (Luke 8:1-3), but this was still in the “optimistic” time of Jesus’ ministry, before the disciples felt the danger of death, and it seems to me that it would take a lot more than the donations they could provide to counteract the severe setbacks of being a Christian in those early centuries. And it’s not as if the brothers waited in order for Christianity to first become lucrative. As mentioned above, the brothers are there with the rest of the earliest Christian community after the Resurrection and ascension in Acts 1:14. Not even fifty days had passed since the crucifixion. Martyrdoms would soon begin (Acts 7:54-60). This would be, perhaps, one of the least advantageous times to join the movement.
The only thing being a Christian consistently got you in the first three centuries of Christianity’s existence was social ostracism, economic and legal oppression, and the occasional violent and fatal persecution. And this is precisely what happened to James and Jude who were both, according to church tradition—and according to Josephus in the case of James—killed for refusing to recant their faith in Jesus.
So, what changed between not believing in him in the Gospels to suddenly believing in him right after his Resurrection and ascension, to giving their lives for that belief later, even when they gained no benefits and were assured almost certain death for being leaders in the nascent Church? Seeing him risen after his death. Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 15:5-7 that Jesus appeared to all the early church leaders and hundreds of other followers. This presumably included his brothers. In the case of James, we don’t have to guess, for Paul says after appearing to the 500, “Then [Jesus] appeared to James …”
The Heart of the Matter
This has been a long journey. Kudos if you made it all the way to the end. Long journeys tend to have twists and turns and unforeseen obstacles that force detours. At times you may be tempted to question the wisdom of the path you’re on. But coming to the end, I hope you’ve felt it worth the time.
This is not unlike the life of Jesus as experienced by those who loved him. Can you even imagine if this was your brother or your son? The confusion, the hope, the fear of losing him. Fear can sometimes make us question things we deeply hold true. It caused Abram and Sarai to doubt God’s promise to them, which created a very messy situation (Genesis 16; 21:1-21). The idea of hearing directly from God and then not acting unwaveringly obedient is another biblical theme (here’s looking at you, Jonah).
So, in this sense, even if the conclusion of this article was that Mary and Joseph and Jesus’ siblings thought he had gone “out of his mind,” and if they “didn’t believe in him,” that would not be all that surprising. Jesus was living dangerously. From the beginning people began plotting to kill him for his radical message (or more correctly, his faithfulness was being attacked by radicals). And he certainly didn’t carry himself like people would expect of the “Savior” and “Messiah [anointed king], the Lord.” He lived like a regular person, and he spoke to the outcasts of society. It was as if he was living purely as a human being and not using his status or power for his own benefit (Philippians 2:6-11). This makes sense in retrospect given what we now understand about the character of God and the mission of Jesus. But it must have been confusing and fear-inducing at the time. And confusion and fear often lead to, let’s say, interesting responses.
It cannot be said enough: this is not a fictional account full of black-and-white characters who act as you would expect, but a non-fiction account full of complex people who act unpredictably and inconsistently with respect to their own beliefs and experiences. That’s the story of human beings in the Bible!
However, as we have seen, some of those reactions are highly unlikely. It seems that his brothers did, in some sense, not believe in him. They either did not believe in who Jesus thought he was, or they did not believe he was fulfilling his mission correctly. As far as Jesus’ parents and siblings, we have very good reasons to doubt that they ever considered him “out of his mind.”
After years of doing this work, I can honestly say that the scriptures amaze and astonish me more and more the closer I look. When an objection is brought up to you, don’t fret. Don’t give into “hands-in-the-air-ism.” Instead, seek with prayer and curiosity, and the Lord, who was miraculously born of a virgin and then miraculously resurrected from the grave, will reveal himself to you.
Further Reading
Terrified of 400,000 Errors in the New Testament?
Is Jesus a Failed Apocalyptic Prophet?
Ehrman vs. Ehrman: Who is the Son of Man?
Science DESTROYED Faith? The Curious Case of Nicolaus Copernicus
